User talk:Boeing720/Archive 1

Urban area of Copenhagen vs "Hovedstadsområdet

Hi, thanks for your edits to Urban area of Copenhagen. I'd like to apologise for completely removing the section and your work. I notice that the section is unsourced though, and there were numerous spelling mistakes with the text being quite hard to read. Could you try and edit the section to make it more intelligible and possibly find some more sources? Thanks! --Peter (Talk page) 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tanks for Your message. I will try to make my editing better. I've found spelling errors myself. I give sources like Google maps and a link to a map of Amager island from the 1940's. Sources in english language is not the most easy to find reguarding local matters about danish geography. But I'll try that aswell. 83.249.38.85 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The term ”Hovedstadsområdet” is used about both the urban area and the metropolitan area. Statistics Denmark do use the term ”Hovedstadsområdet” about the urban area though. Saltholm is not included in Copenhagen urban area. If you look closer in ”statistikbanken” at the homepage of DST you can actually see that of Tårnby municipalitys 40,835 citizens (1/1 2011) only 40,485 are counted as a part of the urban area:

   185-00185 Tårnby Kommune 40 835
   185-01100 Tårnby (del af Hovedstadsområdet) 40 485
   185-99997 Uden fast bopæl 112
   185-99999 Landdistrikter 238

   http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6519/trnby.jpg

The other areas that you mention are not a part of the urban either, Statistics Denmark do not calculate the area of urban areas, but I would estimate the area of the urban area as defined by DST is about 315 :km2. So you can´t say that the urban area includes more than 100 km2 of non-urban areas when DST never have stated the area of it - so I don´t know why you say that? The 455.61 km2 area figure that has been shown :on wikipedia was made up by someone based on some municipalities (and even included Dragør municipality). All the population of Copenhagen municipality is a part of the urban area but all of the area is of course not. Christian2381 (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missunderstood. Because what You state is exactly what I ment , but the article table includes (the entire) "Tårnby municipality" to "Hovedstadsområdet" - and by doing so "Hovedstadsområdet" cannot be concidered as "an Urban area of Copenhagen" due to the unbuilded areas I mentioned. I knew of no other formal definition of urban Copenhagen. But I found the article to be wrong (prior to my editings), both by common sence and by UN's recommendations. The area of urban Copenhagen that You mention, 315 km2 seems to me far more accurate - compared with the 455 kn2 for "Hovedstadsområdet" as it was described in the article. Thow I've never stated that the number of inhabitans was affected by the the unpoulated areas of Amager (apart from the 3 people living on Saltholm). But Copenhagen metropolitan area isn't called "Hovedstadsområdet" but "Hovedstadsregionen", to the best of what I've found out. (a question of the size of metropolitan area is the lately added Stevns munucipality, it quite large but counts only 20.000 inhabitants. The former HT-area has today 1.91 mio inhabitants on about 2700 km2 of land. Adding Stevns makes it 3030 km2 with 1.93 mio inhabitants) 83.249.38.85 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And by the way I do have an account at Commons, and as I assume also on birttish Wikipedia. Perhaps this discussion coul'd be moved to this account Boeing720 (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We agree then. Actually only 100% the population of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Gentofte, Gladsaxe, Glostrup, Hvidovre, Rødovre municipalities are within the urban area, all the other areas are only partly within the urban area. I wrote something about it in the ”talk section” about the urban area.

But ”Hovedstadsområdet is however also refered to as the metropolitan area

As it can be seen here: http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/Planlaegning/Planlaegning_i_byer/Hovedstadsomraadet/ "Hovedstadsområdet omfatter ifølge planloven 34 kommuner: alle kommuner i Region Hovedstaden (bortset fra Bornholms Kommune), samt Greve, Køge, Lejre, Roskilde, Solrød og Stevns Kommuner i Region Sjælland."

Or as seen here (fingerplan 2007): http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/NR/rdonlyres/168AEF1C-EE66-4FE9-95D3-92B5D4452BFD/0/9788772797793.pdf

You are right the metropolitan area was slightly enlarged in 2007 when Vallø which was inside the metro area was merged with Stevns which was outside the metro area and then the new Stevns municipality became a part of the metro area. But it was only enlarged with the ”old” stevns municipality since Vallø was already inside it.

As you also can read here: http://www.sm.dk/data/Dokumentertilpublikationer/Publikationer%202008/Kommunal_udligning_og_generelle_tilskud2008/kap01.htm "1.4.2. Hovedstadsudligningen Hovedstadsudligningen er en mellemkommunal udligningsordning for kommunerne i hovedstadsområdet. Hovedstadsområdet er i denne sammenhæng afgrænset på en måde, der stort set svarer til den hidtidige afgrænsning bortset fra den nye Stevns Kommune, som fremover vil indgå i hovedstadsområdet. Det skyldes, at den nye Stevns Kommune efter kommunalreformen vil bestå af de hidtidige kommuner Vallø og Stevns, hvoraf Vallø har indgået i hovedstadsområdet, mens Stevns har ligget uden for hovedstadsområdet." So ”Hovedstadsområdet” is often used about the metro area, also officially.

However we cannot exactly calculate the population of the old HT-area since the Vallø part of the new Stevns muncipality was included. But the old HT-area has about 10,000 more than you state (Vallø).

What also did confuse me is that you said that ”Hovedstadsområdet” isn't the urban area. However DST clearly states that ”Hovedstadsområdet” is defined by using the 200 meter definition for urban areas (UN's definition), but as said they don´t calculate the area of it. That being said it might not be 100% accurate either since people working at DST are only just humans too. If I look at Google Earth/Krak it seems like the urban area is a bit larger as defined by DST.

Christian2381 (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

People seems to not show username or IP-number. To Chistian2381. (I have not written since I suggested to move this to my talk site (Boeing729). DST (Danmarks Statistik) doesn't do anything more then count the people living inside "Hovedstadsområdet" + they do the publications. But it is Kort og Matrikelstyrelsen KMS, that definies "Hovedstadsområdet". But whwn when it comes to Amager, it's very obvious that large areas of the island (including a part of Copenhagen) is not urban, that KMS has included into "Hovedstadsområdet" is not urban at all. Neighther is Salholm and Peberholm. For some very strange reason these areas is included in "Hovedstadsområdet". So - the urban area of Copenhagen is not equal to "Hovedstadsområdet", not at Amager (which includes Saltholm and Peperholm). "Hovedstadsområdet" does NOT follow the definitions by UN standards, and have large areas whthout buildings. Huge areas. But theey still counts as "Hovedstadsområdet". But urban Copenhagen Urban area is smaller and has thereby higher population density. There simply is not UN definition of urban Copenhagen area at present "Hovedstadsområdet" is 455 km2, and is including atleast these empty areas of Amager (incl. Saltholm and Peberholm)I belive that chistian2381 has got a fair estemation of "the Copenhagen Urban Area". However let's not involve "Hovedstadsregionen" at this point. /Boeing720 83.249.38.85 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are 100% right about both Copenhagen municipality and Tårnby municipality both cotain large un-urbanized areas on Amager as well as the islands Saltholm and Peberholm (Tårnby). Tårnby also contains a big airport which I assume is not counted as a part of the urban area since then Dragør should also be included. Most other municipalities in the Copenhagen area also contain un-urbanized areas.

The 455 km² figure you are refering to isn´t comming from an offical source and it is of course wrong. It isn´t comming from KMS though, someone on Wikipedia made up that figure some years ago by combining the municiaplities of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Gentofte, Albertslund, Ballerup, Brøndby, Dragør, Gladsaxe, Glostrup, Herlev, Hvidovre, Lyngby-Tåbæk, Rødovre, Søllerød, Tårnby and Vallensbæk: 88.25 km² + 8.77 km² + 25.54 km² + 31 km² + 34.09 km² + 20.65 km² + 18.14 km² + 25.00 km² + 13.31 km² + 12.04 km² + 21.91 km² + 38.88 km² + 12.12 km² + 39.77 km² + 65.95 km² + 9.15 km² = 455.61 km².

It was made up before Greve Strand and Ishøj city was added to the urban area in 2007 but also Dragør was also included although DST never included Dragør in the urban area.

The urban area is of course significantly smaller than 455 km².

So I am not really clear why you write those un-urbanized areas are included in Hovedstadsområdet? KMS didn´t state that the area is 455 km2, someone unaware of reality made it up on Wikipedia.

Regarding the metropolitan area, I just wanted to show you that official sources also call the metro area for ”Hovedstadsområdet”. Christian2381 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are rigth about that too. DK wiki states that "Hovedstadsområdet" and "Hovedstadsregionen" sometimes are the same. However from 2007 KMS makes the village, town and city (unadmistational areas of buildings) "borders" (city limits). The numbers for municipalities above are old and do content water areas (both sea water and lakes). F.i. is the area of Copenhagen municipality now reduced to 74.4 km2, and a part of this isn't urban eighther. I copy all this discussion to Boeing720 talk page. (The IP-number above is non-permanent, but origins from me). Main issue must be to determine the land area of urban Copenhagen. I've so far noticed that "Hovedstadsområdet" is too big conc. Amager Boeing720 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right the numbers are old. But one of the main reasons that Copenhagen and Frederiksberg are significantly smaller is also because roads are not included for those 2 municipalities. As seen here: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1964/areay.jpg ("Fra 1. januar 2011 baseres opgørelsen af sognearealerne på data fra Kort & Matrikelstyrelsens matrikelregister. Kun matrikulerede områder er medtaget ved opmålingen, hvilket medfører, at mange søer ikke er medtaget i arealopgørelsen. For kommuner med disse umatrikulerede søer vil arealet derfor være faldet sammenlignet med den hidtidige opgørelse. For København og Frederiksberg gælder yderligere, at vejene ikke er matrikuleret og derfor ikke indgår i det opmålte areal.")Christian2381 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I knew about the roads. But was is ment by "roads" (vejer) - I think it has to do with entering / exiting the "Storkøbenhavn" signs somehow. F.i. motorways not common streets. I don't belive that the 12-13 km2 difference is due to roads mainly, but the inner and outer lakes, the harbour and channels. In the danish text above the road issue is mentioned after the water areas. I saw on DST site that "landsdelen København" is 160 km2, this includes all three Amager municipalities , the rest of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg. But of course this is not at all a proper definition of urban Copenhagen. Your 315 km2 sounds best to reason, I think. Strange this matter is so confusing. As metropolitan area - I still think that the old HT-området is the most proper, since Stevns is a rather large area and only has 20.000 inhabitants. The former HT-området is 2866 km2 (but I think that includes lakes like "Damhussøren" and larger.) Anyway for comparission matters I think the Copenhagen article should be removed of all uncertain data, like the urban area. Boeing720 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well they don´t in particular say that only the motorways aren't included but just roads, anyway if you look at the 2010 and 2011 area figures for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg it´s obvious you see quite drastic changes as compared to other municipalities.

Copenhagen goes from 88.25 to 74.4 km2 and Frederiksberg from 8.77 to 8.10 km2 – that is a change of respectively 15.6% and 7.6% of the entire municipality and Frederiksberg doesn´t really contain any water.

Copenhagen city (landsdel København by) is a term created by DST in 2007 and is defined as Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Tårnby and Dragør municipality and is 167 km2 according to DST (74.4 + 8.1 + 18.3 + 66.2)

The metropolitan area of Copenhagen was defined according to the Plan law (planloven) in 1974 and contained Copenhagen, Frederiksberg municiaplities as well as the counties of Copenhagen, Fredensborg and Roskilde – the same as the former HT-area. You still have to remember that in 2007 the metro area was only enlarged with the old Stevns municipalities since Vallø (which was a part of the metro area) was merged with the old Stevns municipality (outside the metro area) and thereby the new Stevns municipality became a part of the metro area. But the metro area was only enlarged by about ~ 10,000 citizens and the new metro area (except Stevns) is not the same as the HT-area since the HT-area contained Vallø which is now a part of Stevns municipality.

As said there are no official source or institute that has calculated the area of Copenhagen´s urban area but the 455 km2 figure was used in the Copenhagen article for many years I tried removing it and telling people it was wrong but people kept adding it back which was frustrating. Christian2381 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As there is no obvious figure, I will now also try to remove it. Boeing720 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Vincennes forest

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Vincennes forest. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Bois de Vincennes. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Bois de Vincennes - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I thougt it strange that I couldn't find "Vincennes forest" when searching. But following my own link (that first was misspelled - the Boulogne forest, then I found out that this was linked to "Bois de Boulogne". After that I searched at "Bois de Vincennes" and found it. Perhaps I should have delated my new article, but since seaching "Vincennes Forest" gave no result at the time, I decided to let it stay. I am not at all discouraged, but I hope that a search of "Vincennes forest" links to "Bois de Vincennes". Best reguards and thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The Happening (2008 film) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I ment to improve the article aswell as the entire Wikipedia by pointing out that the impact of (most) films cannot be judged after 4 years. If You compare "The Happening (origial 1967)" with the article of the 2008 film You will find that far less is written about the original film, (Faye Dunaway's first) then about the 2008 one. This is silly ! A few fans (kids below 20 I assume) of a film that is completely unknown (outside the US at least) has made a pjoject of this. It's silly. Searching also points to the original film. So why You doubt my intention of improving the article by cutting it down to 5-10 lines, I fail to see. Sorry. 83.249.41.242 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry for forgotten to login Boeing720 (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

...So contribute to the article about the original film? How does criticizing the article for the 2008 film accomplish anything? In any event I doubt anyone is going to support your proposal...in fact I suspect most would consider it vandalism. Doniago (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandaslism is changes in articles delibrety knowing the edits (the text edited) are wrong etc. I didn't change the article. I just wanted to contribute to - more the Wikpedia as av whole, then the article of "The Happening film from 2008" perhaps. So in a way I can give You that much. But - just imagine - If I (or others) wanted I could write 20 pages of an other film that I/they like, but which very few has heard of. And even less has seen. Articles has to stand to a kind of reason. An unkown or small subject (like a film that hasn't won any prices, unknown actors, or doesn't contribute to the hisory of film) Or a topic like "all flights of OY-APZ" (an ex-Boeing 720B aircraft, by the way). OK not full simularity, but You see what I mean, I hope. Well known films must have more space compared less known. Otherwise Wikipedia gets un-encyclopedial (or unblalanced). I'm sorry I cannot contribute to the film "the Happening", since I never seen it. But I knew it was Faye Dunaways first film. I'm sorry if You cannot see my point of view, at least. My "proposal" was ment as an example of how film articles in general tends to be very long with the only purpose that they are new (and has gathered supporters outside normal film criticsism.) New film today perhaps, but Wikipedia will hopefully remain for a very long time. Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My point, ultimately, is that I believe it would be far more constructive to expand on articles that you feel do not contain as much information as they should, than to propose truncating existing articles only because you feel they are receiving undue weight relative to other articles, especially if there's nothing in the article that violates policy (lacking sources, conflict of interest, etc.). If you feel the article should be truncated in terms of material that does not violate policy, I would recommend starting a discussion on the Talk page regarding what specifically you feel should be removed and why. I don't think editors will support a "this article should be shorter" argument if the only rationale is that other articles deserve more material than the one you're criticizing. They need to know what information you consider expendable. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Basicly I have to agree with You. And Jimmy Wales once wrote "there is always enough space on Wikipedia, unlike in books". However I have noticed that many scientific articles has been cut down. This appies especially to some mathematical formulas that in the past was written to explain (so at least semi-educated could follow the explinations), now they are often just a copy from a book, assuming that the reader is an mathematical expert. Also som historical articles has been cutted down for no apparent reason. I won't bore You further whith this. And parts of my resoning I now regret. But it was a bit disturbing with e-mailing me (perhaps automatic, I don't know) only because I wrote some lines on the talking page. Meaning - If I can contribute to an article, then I do so. So what's the purpose with talking pages ? Is no criticism alouded at all ? I thought they were ment to prevent "editing wars". But I strongly agree that cutting down an article just because an other article seems too short - that is no argument. Have You seen "Gloria" by the way ? There are two versions, one made by John Cassavettes, putting his 50 year old wife as principal actress. It's from the late 70's. And a copy made 20-25 years later with a 20 year old "sexy babe" replacing the mid aged woman. I've recently seen both. From my point of view there was absolutely no reason to remake the film. (And there seldom is, I think) Not because the original is bad, quite the opposite. And thats the reason why I find the copy stupid. The original is still better. (independant of the order the films are watched). And this trend, to copy old films really is anoying to me. (try to explain myself) But if I understand things right, the film "The Happening" that Your project is about, has nothing at all to do with the 1967 film ? This was an importaint part of the reason I wrote some lines in the talk pages. My misstake (assuming it was a copy) And I'm sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I actually know squat about The Happening, either version. I think I looked the article up on a lark once, and only ended up following it because I either trimmed down the plot or found problems with unsourced information. Afraid I'm not familiar with Gloria either. If you're curious, a list of films I own and can maybe have an intelligent conversation about can be found here. Enjoy! (smile) Doniago (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! After a brief watch of the film pictures, I can see You have the good taste of owning "Das Boot" - which is my favorite of war-filmes. The german themselves dubb foregin film into german, rather than using subtitles. But this is a german film and shall be watched with original language (a general rule for me). I've also seen "Amadeus" at a Cinema. I remember it as "good", and it gave me a small entrance to classical music. I've also seen all three "Bourne" films. They are good action. But action is not really my favorite type. I also could see some horror films. That is a type of film I like - if it's a well done film. Roman Polanskis "The Ninth Gate" is typically what I like when it comes to scary movies. Genarally I'm no big fan of SciFi but "the Fifth Element" is more then jus Sci Fi. I also note some really old ones, like "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane" I cannot recall them, but the very best of old films are usually still good entertainment. I've rather recently watched Hitckock's "Rebecca". "The day after tomorrow" is not quite my cup of tea thow. If You like police dramas I strongly can recommend the UK TV-series (7 episodes , 60 minutes) that is called "The Shadow Line". (When the seventh episode ends, the END is reached. Indeed) I do not like "ever continuing" series like "Lost", "Damages" and "Homeland" - they start well, but don't end until the broadcasting company notices that the watching starts falling. Nice pictures and good mixing. Cheers! Boeing720 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Flight instruments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flight director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand, the problem is that "flight director" can point to two different articles. (I had not a clue about flight directors in space at "editing time"). Boeing720 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And I think I have "cracked it" now. The blue link points to correct article.

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Flight director (aviation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ILS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Article

Pichpich redirected it, not me. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have diturbed You in this case. It was by the history file I thought You made the edit. However problem is now solved. Sorry for the inconvinience. 83.249.42.164 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. When you recently edited Rebus (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hannah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hells Angels MC criminal allegations and incidents, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Christiania and DR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World War I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preussia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torkild Strandberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torkild Strandberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TV2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Hardy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twilight of the Gods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This disambiguation was indeed very hard to realise, since Inspector Morse (TV series) was on the same line. The disambiguation issue was an episode title of this series. But I think I'vo got it right now. Is it possible to check difficult disambiguations before edit ? I mean f.i. "Waterloo" can be a battle, a train station or a song - but thats well known, which

isn't the case here !? Boeing720 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oberkommando des Heeres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hans Krebs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

sock puppeting

It's pretty obvious you're the same user who's been leaving these [1] racist and obnoxious comments on my talk page and those of other Polish editors. I guess you decided to create (another?) actual account. That still does not make it alright. And that IP address very strongly suggests you're indef banned User:Jacob Peters. No? Volunteer Marek 03:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

One- the link You provide goes to user "Volenteer Marek". I cannot get anything out of it. And I do not comprahend what "sock puppeting" is. The word "puppeting" is not even included in my English dictionary. Closest is "puppy" - "young dog".

What do You mean with "Polish editors" (plural) ? Do You know all, or just a small club ? And where the f**k do You get racist and obnnoxius from ? I have used "Boeing720" for years, but "AviatorPontus" was my original name at Commons. I have never ever seen "Jacob Peters" before. However I do remember "Marek" or "VolenteerMarek" , but that was under the article about Wroclaw/Breslau. Rings a bell ?? And as I rememer some of Your "Polish editors" wrote "WE DO NOT NEED ANY SOURCES, NOT EVEN ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNIA".

Two- What in my statement under Pilsudski Talk page (sorry I have no Polish keyboard installed, know thoough that the "L"

with "something on" is pronounced like "W" in English - to keep it simple, atleast) do You find racist and obnnoxius? All encyclopedias I've red states that Pilsudski was autoritarian , non-democratic and after 1926 a dictator. Sweedish, British, American, Danish. And do You deny that Pilsudski was a person not to speak of during 1945-1989 ? But all sorrows of Polish people for the last 250 years , cannot defend rising Pilsudski to a saint. He made some imperative work for the new Polish state, preparing already from 1916 when Kaiser Wilhelm II promised a free Poland (if only so, on the ex-Russian territories, but that area covered Warszawa, Lodz and all 1945 lost territories with exception of Vilnius/Wilno). I stand by my statement under Pilsudski talk page (obviously together with dozens of other editors). However do not accuse me of beeing someone else. I've never ever even red the Pilsudski article until recent days. Berst of reguards in search of the truth at Wikipedia Boeing720 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to assume that you have nothing to do with the IP user who was posting the obnoxious remarks on various talk pages. Hence, my apologies. Please understand though that you showed up right after that IP, and were essentially saying the exact same things (though without the racist stuff) so it was a reasonable suspicion.Volunteer Marek 02:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits on Polish dictator Pilsudski and for contributing to a discussion at the Talk page

Thank you for your edits on Pilsudski and for contributing to a discussion at the Talk page. Please continue monitoring the Pilsudski page. Despite the discussions on the fascist dictatorship by Pilsudski, followed by the Polish fascist junta rule, and despite many references provided in Talk, Polish Pilsudski apologists continue to vandalize the Pilsudski page, trying to eradicate both the references sources and any mentionings of the Pilsudski dictatorship. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Sources_on_Pilsudski_dictatorship:_Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia.2C_The_Oxford_Companion_to_Military_History.2C_Gale_Encyclopedia_of_Biography.2C_Columbia_Encyclopedia_and_Time_Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.86.42 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Your support. I just hope that "the Polish editors"-group can come to reason. There is no other nationality that so often attempts to bend the obvious thruth, but I think they are a very small group. Boeing720 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

But comments like these don't exactly help matters either... Volunteer Marek 02:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I agree. But 1. when I wrote this, You still were very suspicious and accusational. And here user 24.6.86.42 did not make any stupit "car-thief" accusations againt Polish people. 2. Reason for term "the Polish editors" (in plural) was that another (Polish , I assume) user agreed with You. "repport it to S??". It then felt as I've written above. Analogy - If You get attacked by two people, You do not spit at a third that helps You, not ? If the helping person then later turns out to be nasty and the attack was appologised - the things become different. (Hope You understood). By the way do You know if "Oblast" is a name or a word ? If it's a word, it does not seems to be included in the English language. (though my dictionary doesn't cover all synonyms. Howewer, since I've moved to Russia now, the "Kaliningrad Oblast" is one article and Kaliningrad/Kaliningrad exclave another. WhatsYour opinion of this ? It may confuse readers, I fear. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's just call it a clean slate.

"Oblast" is a word in English language, though an imported one. You can do a search in English language books by including an obvious English word or phrase: [2]. And usually the standard high quality English dictionaries will have it: [3]. Also, in this case I think there might be a technical difference between the "Oblast" and the "Enclave" though I'd have to look into it.Volunteer Marek 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

From the view of Russia - the Kaliningrad exclave. An enclave is like San Marino and the Vatican from an Italian point of view. Thats my knowledge as of today. (I think I'm right, but not quite 100%) Thanks for the enlightening about "oblast" (it's not included in my dictionay, but like I said,its not complete. 83.249.173.211 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Treaty of Copenhagen (1660) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Treaty of Stockholm and Treaty of Fontainebleau

Treaties of Stockholm (Great Northern War) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Copenhagen

Treaty of Frederiksborg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Copenhagen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I thought I got the "Treaty of Fointanebleau (1679)" right. But apperently not in all articles, where I added this treaty. In general it's difficult to know in advance if a blue link really is disambigous. Of course it's possible to check by pressing the link - but while editing, other things sooner comes to mind. So to speak. Boeing720 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at Cavarrone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Night train (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Pull up (aircraft) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pilot, Flaps, ILS, Slats, Touch and go and Turn around

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Pull up (aircraft) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pull up (aircraft) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull up (aircraft) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Lfdder (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in case this helps: you might want to make a copy of your Pull up article, so that you can improve it and use it for a new article at say Pull up procedure (aviation. A good place for your temporary copy might be a user subpage such as User:Boeing720/Pull up. Let me know if you need any help with the page moves. (of course I cannot promise your new article would be accepted, this is Wikipedia!). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I think that I will save the file as a simple txt file on my own computer. And then I may later make the article under the far better name, including undoubtful sources. I have to admit to have written the article too hasty and I didn't excpected this magnitude of opposition eighter. I must take some of the OR criticsim to me, and learn from it. But I strongly objects to attempted to copy the "go aroud" article. I had never seen it, and thougt the general term for aborted approaches was "turn around" (hence that phrase was used in a TV-series "The Worlds most Dangerous Airports"). Thanks again for Your advices. And I hope be able to return with a well-sourced article "Pull up procedure (aviation)" Boeing720 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Pull up (aircraft). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  13:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, to my defence I want to add that 1. the article was initiated by me. 2. I gave the article a doubtful name. 3. I have accepted the criticism against the article, when it comes to the OR- "Original Research" -issue. By the removal I wanted to show that I had adapted the criticism. And to my knowlidge I was the only contributer to the article in question. I should first have gathered "evidence", and only if sufficient sources and references had been found, then initiated the article. I did, prior to the removal, wright an acceptance of the removal at the removal talk page. At which none else had voted to keep the article. Ofcource I should have checked that it was OK for me to delete the article. Procedures are importaint. However I hope for forgivness reguarding, since I understood that the article become OR, since sources were more difficult to find than I expected. By the very least I hope that the entire case can be concidered as one error, not two. Boeing720 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi Boeing720, I hope you don't mind my dropping you a line here. I know it's tough having an article critiqued and deleted - it's happened to me, so I know what it's like. And it might feel like personal criticism - but please try not to take it that way. I see nothing but a good faith attempt on your part to create an article, and I see nobody suggesting anything other than that - Wikipedia just has quite strict policies on what constitutes an appropriate encyclopedia article. Anyway, this is really just to say thanks for your efforts and to offer you some encouragement - my Talk page is always open if I can ever offer you any help or guidance. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi self Zebedee. Certainly not. In the end I even agreed myself, after thinking about it, and erased the text. I realised that the article needed better sourcing in order to not be reguarded as original research. The name was badly chosen aswell. However I strongly deny to have used anything at any point from the "go around" article, as some criticism eledged. I've learned to not initiate an article by just assume that clear supporting evidence exists at the open part of the webb. If I ever will find clear sources elsewhere, then I may retun to the subject, else not. I understand that the credibility of Wikipedia would not survive in the long run, if articles cannot be sourced. And that must apply to us all. Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no such "criticism". You misinterpreted what others have said. — Lfdder (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I was a bit unclear. Some comments ,like "a colourful fantasy (and copy editing)" (which both cannot be truth if the "go around" article is "fireproof") and something that could be interpreted as "do not return to this subject, how good soures you ever may obtain" (don't recall exact phrase) was what I had in mind when I wrote the "denial of accusement"-part in my last statement to Zebedee. (and similar at the delete page). But mainly I wanted to express that I accepted the OR and name parts. Thanks anyway, Lfdder. Boeing720 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

wikt:copy edit, but not sure how it would've been relevant. — Lfdder (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously this wasn't relevant the very least. But still comments like "a colourful fantasy", "never ever return to this issue even with the best of souces" (that wasn't misinterpreted) And please rembember there were both the talk page of the deleted article, and the deletion-nomination-page. I remeber re-wrighting the article due to language/grammar after a remarque. But what puzzles me now, is the connection between copy-edit (after You were kind enough to edjucate me concerning this issue.) Why on earth did someone (more than one, I thik) then connect "copy edit" whith the "go around" article ? Aswell as You solved one question, an other arised. However I've now also learned 1. what's ment by copy-edit 2. realised the vast part of my "denial" was unnecessary. (I would like to add that I never accused any other user, just felt accused by some others, and this "accusing-feeling" was a misinterpretation from me, with the exceptions already mentioned. So thank's again. But can we perhaps leave it at this ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when it comes to lack of, or doubtful soures, (If You are intereted of this subject in general) perhaps You should take a look at f.i. this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wroc%C5%82aw And similar. In the article of "Swedish Pomerania" a statement like "Stettin was the provincial capital until 17??" But not even there "Stettin" got accepted, it was soon shifted into "Szscecin". A spellning that never had been used before 1945. Also other nations in eastern Europe may treat Wikipedia as if it's was a war. But the largest problems has been with several angry Polish users. They uses dubuous Polish litterature, that seems to explain why the current borders of Poland are the historically correct. And at talk pages statements such as this example are not uncommon "We have no reason to read Encyclopedia Brittanica, it would just be a waste of time". (if You are interesed) Boeing720 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazi Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Populist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP practice

Please see and read WP policies on original research and on what talk pages are not there for. They should help clarify a few things. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 08:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Conc. OR I do not understand what You refer to. I have made no edits. I introduced the Swedish layout of Shierer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in order to help You to - to help me, finding the statements You refer to, but that I cannot find. Not at the pages You refer to, or even the chapter. On the other side, the book has - like You know, a strange numbering of pages, chapters, subchapters/headlines and main parts. And also larger headlines split som of the four main parts. Hence I thought it would be helpful for You. If You really are interested of citations from Shirers "brickstone". (It is actually even thicker than a brickstone, by the way). Helping other users is not against any Wiki-policy, as far as I've read. Thanks aswell Boeing720 (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nazism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dave Dial (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dave ! I do not quite understand this warning. Have You not looked at the tal page ? I have indeed raised the issue with two (possible sock poppeting) users. And the question originally didn't come from me. I made no edits to the lead until user N-HH asked for tertiary source that supports my belief, that the article Nazism already in the lead suffers from secear misconceptions. And in any case is indeed unsmooth formulated for the readers of this Wikipedia. I made no chanes until I finally found an undisputable source. Possibly due to the official title "The Consese Encyclopædia of Wold History" - why the Danish/Norwegian "Æ","æ" letter is used, I have no idea. I posses the 1958 edition of this foliant size book. In the 1971 edition the title is cahanged into "The Consese Encyclopedia of Wold History" however. And there exists atleast one newer edition aswell (well after 1971), with the same title but new editor. But there are little doubt that it's the same book. "History from 38000 BC to current date". It's written by 20-25 professors, lecturers of univerities (London , Oxford, Cambridge) and is printed in (by a brief look at it) all nations that uses English as native language. And India. First rejection of this source was "bad English" - though I cannot help the "æ" in the title. And I made an exact quote from it. English isn't my native language, but I had no problem understanding the citation. After increased the information reguarding the source I re-rejceted the article back. Since I cannot help that a person that is native speaker of English could not understand the phrase (or didn't want to understand). Then a person that didn't participate at the talk page at all, rejected the source as "obscure". The reason I possess it is simply that my mother was a teacher of the subjects "History" and "Swedish language" (in Sweden obviuosly, but at academical level, English litterature is still today more in use than Swedish. (My mother is 71 and retired by the way)) And when she studied at University of Lund this book was used. Hence I know it isn't "obscure". And now user TFD-TheFourDeuces states that the source is too old. (Though written after all events which it covers. I know newfact sometime emerges, like that Stalin and NKVD killed around 20.000 Polish officers, intellectual or noble Polish men long before Hitler launched op.Barbarossa. As late as in the mid 80's, I remember that the Nazis were blamed for that massacre aswell. But the truth is now undisputed, it was NKVD that killed the Polish at Solensk. However my edit deals with ideology - and neghter the nazi ideology or the (italian) fascism ideology can't possibly change afterwards, can it ? The view at the ideologies of the past may, but not the ideologies themselves. No - this is a question of WP:Owning a page, or that is atleast my strong feeling. Because, as preaviously stated, the source has been updated at several occations, the editor aswell. But not the view of fascistic and nazistic ideology. I have also invented TFD - The Four Deuces in ordetr to acchive any kind of agreement. So please do not accuse me of making changes without use of the talk page first. I did so for weeks. Boeing720 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, you may find this information of some interest.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RolandR/ArchivePatriot1010 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Patriot1010 ! Had a look at the suggested link. As I understand it "sock puppeting" means that a certain user have more than one user name, at the same time. And is using these user names for "support of yourself", so to speak. I'm mostly annoyed by users that attempt to "own an article" - and uses the article for other reasons than attempting to describe the truth as good as possible (of cource by use of references and from a neutral point of view). But "article owners" always find some argument for rejecting what they don't like. Perhaps my edit of "Stalinism" could have been improved, but I still find my rejected edit as an improvement of the "Stalinism" article. And if my English really wasn't good enough as RolandR stated, why didn't he help me with misspelled words ? My only answer is that he didn't like a list of what Stalinism actually led to. I "taped" (on VCR harddrive) the French TV- documenary "The great belief of the Century" from 1999 (part 2 of 4). The documentary series is about Communism, and the second episode delt with Stalinism. I wrote down all facts about the episode (company, editor, producer etc) from the "ending credits" text. And all concise facts were taken from this documentary. And a few years ago I red Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, 2005, 2004 ISBN 1-4000-4230-5 ISBN 978-1400042302", and all facts from the documentary matches Montefiore's approx 1000 pages work (with exception of what the French film "East/West" is build upon, based on true facts - as one of a dozen points). And my litteral translation from Swedish to English was slightly different than anticipated ("Stalin - the Red Tsar and his Court"), but a user that is interested in Communism of any kind should atleast know about Montefiore, I think. Now I must either go through Montefiore's brickstone again - or let it be. Time will tell, but my guess is that whatever source I ever will provide, some "article owner" will reject all edits that attempts to describe the horrors of Stalinism for some reason. Although (or possible because of) I'm a programmer of embedded system, I have never found network technology as my cup of tea, so to speak. This relies to TCP-IP aswell as how Wikipedia is built up. Hence, the link contence doesn't tell me very much. Yet I find it interesting, and if RolandR indeed is an intentional sock puppet I sure hope someone will stop him. (I must though add that keywords can be forgotten, the auto-login may be affected by firewalls and visits at other Wikipedias. And f.i. my internet supplier uses temporary IP-numbers. But the use of more than one user name at the same time cannot be acceptable) Wikipedia must not be used for hidden agenda purposes of any kind, I think. Boeing720 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Copenhagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sealand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The messages are good information. And I have now corrected "Sealand" to correct English spelling, "Zealand" (which dosn't seem to be disambigous). The island is spelled "Sjælland" in Danish, my only defence for the misspelling. Sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nazism and editing practice

You should know by now that you need to propose changes on the talk page first, especially when your first attempt has been reverted. Not only are your changes dubious in content but they invariably contain mis-spellings and poor English and rely on a chatty, discursive style which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. What you are doing now is borderline vandalism and it's not as if you haven't come unstuck doing it previously. "Fundament" just about sums it up. N-HH talk/edits 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated, I mainly moved parts around. Last version was so obviuosly full of mixed verb tenses (or "tempus") that I strongly doubt previous editor had made any proposals. ("Nazsism is..." and suddenly "Nazism was..."). And it really needed sources. I do not care for stars or credentials, I want the articles to be readable and true. Further I prized atleast one of Your paragraphs - why didn't You do something then ? Michael Burleigh was introduced by Darkstar, unfortunatly he isn't translated to Swedish . But I spend some hours in a huge library in Copenhagen, and found it in Danish. I wasn't aloud to lend it (I have no Danish library-card). But I suggest You read it. Nazism was indeed besed on Biological Racism and Social Darwinism aswell as the totalitarian dictatorship. (Even if Hitler wouldn't agree, in his view , he "just" led [Ger. zu führ = to lead] the peolpe without any parliament. No big deal there though). But Fascism didn't involve Social Darwinim and ("colonization in remote countries" seems to differ from that), and above all Fascism excluded the biological racism. It was an effort of summaring it all up (moving some parts down or up), correcting verb tenses, sourcing my own edits. And put all difficulties to the end of the lead. I even included "mainstream". I fail to see Your "borderline of vandalism" - almost all sources lacked, and the grammar was bad. (And to my knowlidge Nazism has only been used once, and that ended in 1945. Hence "Nazism was" not "is" but changing tence from one centance to the next You have to admit is incorrect Boeing720 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Reich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dutch, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Copenhagen S-train stations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vestbanen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Skåne Commuter Rail and PROD reasons

Hello, I de-PRODed the article Skåne Commuter Rail which you had PRODed, and did some modifications to it in line with your comments (but it is definitely not fully fixed). While I share your view regarding the problems with the article, and the need to improve it, I can't see that any of the concerns you cited are valid reasons for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON. Please check that policy and WP:PROD if you're uncertain. Best regards, Tomas e (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There are several problems. Article deals with both "Pågatåg" and "Öresundståg". Much of this could be transferred to separate articles, such as Oresundtrain and Scania under a headline "communications". Can You giveany source to the classification of "Pågatåg" as "commuter rail" ? Several branches are served without commuter enforcing. And there really are no lines. It's not a issue of the lack of official line numbering. Some train from Ystad/Simrishamn continue to Lund. Even if that isn't stated in the time tables. (follow the train number, and You will see. Deleteing or a new label, such as "Scanian Local Train System]] is more correct, and should deal with "Pågatåg" mainly. Oresundtrain already exist. The combination of all trains in Scania belongs to the Scania article, I think. 83.249.161.196 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry - the auto login doesn't work when opening the webb through e-mail, it seems to me. It is my text above, however Boeing720 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, the concept of a "Commuter rail" usually includes transports from remote suburbs into a major city. Malmö can perhaps be concidered as a large enough city, but it lacks real suburbs (possibly Burlöv and Oxie, but they area more a part of the city). While Lund, Helsingborg, Kristianstad, Landskrona, Ystad etc are towns of their own, not suburbs. And the "Pågatåg" train system concists of a triangle of tracks (Lund - Helsingborg - Hässleholm - Lund- ect) and connecting tracks (Lund-Malmö-Ystad/Simrishamn, Helsingborg-Ängelholm and Hässleholm-Kristianstad). A "commuter rail" system has a usually a central hub, or atleast a central area. This is abscent in Scania. (Malmö has approx 300.000 of 1.275.000 inhabitants, and is not a "hub centre". And the "Pågatåg" serves entire Scania. A better example of a Swedish commuter rail system is "Pendeltågen" in Stockholm. So a new article name is needed, I think. Besides "Pågatågen" are locally known as "local trains" Boeing720 (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landskrona BoIS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Scania

Scania additions you made have spelling errors and makes little sense - can you edit?-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 01:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a photo and have expanded the climate tables for comparision purposes. Could You please be a bit more specific ? What's not making sence ? Boeing720 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Whith average temperature is ment 24 hours/day average during the entire months (and year), during the not running period between 1st January 1961 and 31st December 1990. Next such period ends in 2020."-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 02:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point. Most other average temperatures that are presented at Wikipeda deals with average maximum and minumum temperatures only. But these figures are actual averages (24 hour meassuring). Just to add max and min temps and divide by two doesn't give the real average, especially not when the day is much longer or shorter than 12 hours. Every year for a sequence of 30 years are then used for the final calculation. By "not running" is ment that it's not the last 30 years. In order to get a very high mathematical certainty of both current climate and possible climate changes, two 30-year periods are compared to each other. Each period must also be predetermined, 1961-1990 will eventually be compared with 1991-2020. And if all stations shows a change - then You can be certain of a climate change has occured. The commonly used source at Wikipedia (World wide weather, I belive it's called) isn't up to that standard (and may also differ from country to country. For instance, the Danish weather service DMI uses their station at Copenhagen Airport Kastrup, to descibe the climate for not only central Copenhagen (8 km away) , but also for a large part of Zealand. But as I hope You see by looking at the Scanian map and the climate table, small distances may cause rather large temperature differencies. Of course Denmark also uses many other weather stations - but so far have I only managed to find so detailed temperature data from a 30-year period on trhe webb, as SMHI has done at http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.2860!ttm6190%5B1%5D.pdf in combination with http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/month_year/normal_1961_1990/SMHI_month_year_normal_61_90_temperature_celsius.txt I hope that I have made myself clear(er) now and in the article. Boeing720 (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I get it now - I made a slight change to the wording on the page - hopefully still accurately - which makes it clearer to me anyway..Why is it called "not running" - do you mean it is a fixed period and not that you simply look at the averages over the past 30 years but rather over two independent 30 year periods?-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 13:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Yourself ! And Your change was an improvement. And You are also correct about "not running" in this case means "fixed". If You think "fixed" makes better sence than "not running", please feel free to change it. The translation from Swedish is perhaps a bit too litterar ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh good - and I think I'll leave it alone for now - but if anyone asks, either of us can comment further. I don't think fixed/not running is a linguistic thing - I think it's a maths thing. I know what you mean when you say running average in maths but when I'm not expecting it I didn't think of that meaning..It's interesting to know that there is such a project going on, though I'm impatient to know I have to wait til 2021 to find out the answer.... Anyway, I'll leave this one there but if there is anything I can do in the future just yell.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Seven years left, yes. But this isn't the only way of meassuring climate and climate changes. By the way there are seres from 1931-1960 and 1901-1930 already done. But with fewer stations - and mixture of automatic/manual readings. And those data arn't available at the webb, as far as I've found out. However I used the 1961-1990 period, due to the availability and to show differencies whithin Scania (and to compare with a few more northern locations). (: Boeing720 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Between the Lines (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Death in Paradise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Capital Region (Denmark), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sealand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted two of your recent edits because they were unsourced. They also introduced misspellings, which is not a reason for reversion but suggests that you didn't check what you were adding against a proper source. I gather you are not a native speaker of English, so please check the spelling in an English dictionary or the source you use if you repost these additions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No my native language is Swedish. Could You please tell me in which article I've misspelled words ? It would be helpful. Usually I do check "difficult" words in articles through a dictionary. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose You refer to the picture text in the article Great Black-backed Gull ? There is a text (in Swedish) that explains why the eagle has folded down its claws. (Perhaps I wrote "clows") The Swedish text is as follows

"En trut attackerar fränt och djärvt. Störtanfallet är så kraftigt att örnen fredar sig genom att slå med vingarna. Han kommer ur balans och sträcker genom den orytmiska rörelsen ben och klor" In English

"A [trut = joint word for bigger gulls that has a red spot on its beak (the following page is full of L.Marinus so I'm rather sure that this applies also to the picture in question)] is attacking [the word "fränt" in this context do I not quite understand.] and fearlessly. [assume this adverb that refer to the verb "attack(ing)". I have looked up the adjective "fearless", and added +"ly" - here I am insecure of spelling] The diving attack is so powerful that the eagle defends himself [I'm not sure of the gender of the eagle though and avoided that issue] by vawe whith the wing. He comes out of balance and through the unrythmical movement folds down legs and claws"

So spelling of "claw" was wrong, and I'm unsure of "fearlessly". But I do indeed have a source. But OK the source states nothing about "no prey in sight". But I think the picture text contence was fairly correct. Boeing720 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now also changed the same picture text at Mobbing (animal behavior) Boeing720 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The mispelt word were "Euroasian" instead of "Eurasian" in the GB-b Gull caption, and "Gigant", presumably instead of "Giant", in the eagle article. I hadn't realised that my reversion had taken out the image, which I restored. I amended the caption since some of the image file details, already on its talk page, shouldn't be in the caption. "Fearlessly" was correctly spelt, but I removed because you can't know the bird's state of mind. Binomials are italicised with only the genus capped, Larus marinus. You don't normally need to put the name of the image's subject in the caption, it's assumed unless otherwise stated. in this case it was correct since two species were shown. Like you, I'll take the identity of the gull on trust! Sorry if this all seems a bit didactic, cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this. In the case of "Gigant" I belive that I just missed a key (such can happen even when wrighting in native language). But "Eurasian" was of course bad of me. Concidering Latin spelling and capital letters, I must admit that I wasn't quite aware of what You now have enlighten me about before. Thanks, by the way. I also do agree that my image text was too long. I should have red the text before writing the image text. (however, as explained, not without any source) I appriciate Your effort and hope I will learn from it, cheers Boeing720 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Copenhagen Municipality may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in [[Øresund]]), and has a population of 549,050 (2012). The [[Lord Mayor of Copenhagen]] (eqviliant to the ''Mayor of London'' rather than the ''Lord Mayor of City of London'', and is

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inspector Morse (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dead on Time and Fat Chance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vikings (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Cards (U.S. TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Final Cut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker 50, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

List of all War Declarations and other outbreakes of hostilities

Hello, I would recommend moving the "List of all War Declarations and other outbreakes of hostilities" section over to the Diplomatic history of World War II page. The table is very detailed and is much better suited on a topic specific page such as Diplomatic history of World War II. The WWII article covers a very broad topic, with highlights of the most important events, and players; with many links to more in-depth artless where your chart would be much better fit. --Factor01 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I don't really see what's "very detailed" about it. Date, nation(s) vs nation(s) and formal reason. The comments are short. However in the case of France vs UK may need some clarification. I'm no great believer in cutting down articles just because they get long. Especially since the list cover the entire duration of the war, (unlike the huge operations live "Overlord" and "Barbarossa". Such articles calls (of cource) for separate articles. And since it really isn't a table of dimplomatics but outbreaks of wars (including "passive" states of war),so I think its best location i whithin the scope of the "World War II"-article. (Also, since the text is long, the table give the readers a possibility for a certain "quick look")Boeing720 (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The other problem with the chart is that it blurs the line between two distinct concepts; the diplomatic declarations of war, and real world aggression. For example; under the "Attacked Nations" column Germany is listed 16 time, far more than any other nation. Yet, in reality it was Germany that did most of the "attacking". And, in reverse you see Great Britain and the Commonweatlh countries "attacking" Germany while in reality, they were simply responding to hostile actions by the Nazi Government. At the very least, I would recommend renaming the two columns, and adding comments that clearly explaining the circumstances. Comments such as "European press used "World War" for the first time" are irrelevant to the accuracy of the table. --Factor01 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I see Your point reguarding headlines. I will change that. But I fail to see whats wrong with the "World War" comment. Some British press declared "World War !", that's for certain. It's of course a European point of view, but that is included in the statement. I do not state that the Second World war didn't begin already when German attack at Poland. But the British/French response was unknown at the time. Boeing720 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I used "active/passive nation(s) instead" , removed also statement of when "World War first was mentioned", but also changed main headline to "List of all outbreakes of war and their causes". Reguarding 13 attacks at Germany - please keep in mind that towards the end of the war (in Europe), Germany had no non-occupied allied left. As You also can see from the table, all German attacks came during 1939 to 1941. The last was to declare war on the United States in December 1941. Perhaps Your conclutions after counting the number of times Germany appears in the third column was a bit hasty ? More importaint is (as I see it) how many wars Nazi-Germany started, and not so much how many nations that got angry at Germany over the years. The table is not intended as a statistical source. If there are more comments in the comments-column You dislike, just remove them if you think they are misleading for the readers. OK ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of all war outbreaks during World War II

The article List of all war outbreaks during World War II has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Better covered by Declarations of War during World War II, which it largely duplicates. Much worse writing and formatting.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. N4 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback - from N4

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N4 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N4 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Declarations of War during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luxemburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

fixed Boeing720 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustaf Hammarsten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cleo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

fixed Boeing720 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Allsvenskan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. QED237 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have provided sources. Boeing720 (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have failed to see any reliable ones and no discussion on article talkpage (no attempt to solve dispute) and instead re-edit the content again several times is edit-warring. QED237 (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what edit warring means? You should not edit article at all until you have tried to talk on article talkpage so that we could all discuss it there and discuss the "new sources" if they are reliable or not and so on. You dont want to know how close I am to reporting you to WP:ANEW at the moment, but I am very kind and happy today as my swedish hockey team LHC won tonight, so I am assuming really good faith at the moment with the hope you open a discussion on article talk NOW. QED237 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Landskrona BoIS may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• occations be used for temporary benches.<ref>http://www.svenskafans.com/fotboll/349891.aspx</ref> {In 2006, there were discussions about a renovation of the stadium, or alternatively constructing a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George "Åby" Ericsson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• was of cource concidered "very well done".<ref>Does "very well done" really need any source (most nations would be pleased with a draw in a WC opening game against Brazil, results is easily

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orvar Bergmark may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and is was also the first time in 20 years as Sweden had managed to ''qualify'' for a World Cup. (Sweden hosted the [[1958 FIFA World Cup]], and hence didn't need to qualify. (Sweden didn't manage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

re: Landskrona BoIS

First of all I edit Allsvenskan because I want to and I follow the league (did not know I had to explain why I edit certain articles). Secondly, NO I am not a sockpuppet which I am a bit shocked you even had to ask. I guess it is easy to spot looking at the profiles and the contributions. The fact is that you must source your edit (wikipedia is not a reliable source) and disuss this instead of just changing the same content over and over again. Keep changing without providing reliable source and discussion at article talkpage will have you blocked.QED237 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sourced the crowd capacitry of Friends Arena through extern source - 50.000 for football, 65.000 for concerts.

Here is the table of 1936/37 season copied from this Wikipedia. As You can see Landskrona BoIS third, not second. And this season has so far been their best ever. By the very least goal ratio came ahead of nuber of scored goals. This explains why Helsingborg IF came second. I'm sorry for the "sock puppy" - but from where did You come ? I believe user Reckless to be just Reckless, overestimating himself, cannot admit to an error, and is rather young I presume. Of course sources should cover all articles, but there almost no refferences or sources in the Allsvenskan. I provided one for capacity of Frieds Arena though.

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification or relegation
1	IK Sleipner (C)	22	12	6	4	46	28	+18	30
2	Landskrona BoIS	22	10	6	6	40	31	+9	26
3	Hälsingborgs IF	22	12	2	8	36	27	+9	26
4	IF Elfsborg	22	12	2	8	44	37	+7	26
5	Gårda	22	8	9	5	29	28	+1	25
6	AIK	22	9	6	7	44	37	+7	24
7	IK Brage	22	9	3	10	45	44	+1	21
8	Sandvikens IF	22	8	5	9	29	32	−3	21
9	Malmö FF	22	6	8	8	20	30	−10	20
10	Örgryte IS	22	7	5	10	33	37	−4	19
11	IFK Göteborg (R)	22	6	4	12	28	35	−7	16	Relegation to Division 2
12	GAIS (R)	22	3	4	15	19	47	−28	10

Source:
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(C) Champions; (R) Relegated

Why on earth would someone put Landskrona BoIS at the third place , if it wasn't true ? I've red "the year that Sleipner won, BoIS almost managed to be the runner's up, but due to just a little lower goal ratio the big silver went to HIF instead" (BoIS= Landskrona BoIS, HIF = Helsingborgs IF). I would really want it to be true, but I know that it isn't. Why shall I, and not Reckless provide a better source than the one above ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the one trying to impose a change on a page and therfore you have to source that change it is quite simple. Perhaps when it was added in the first place source was given in the edit summary?. And I mostly edit english football as premier league articles and all of the player articles and is very active in WP:FOOTY. I also am currently working with the development of the new league table templates spreading on wikipedia, that makes sure that one single template/table is edited and used on main season page, for example {{2013–14 Premier League table}} on article 2013–14 Premier League, and then the same truncated version of the table is shown on all of the club season articles, without having to update all club season article individually (they often get out of date otherwise), used for example at 2013–14 Everton F.C. season#League table. However I am a native Swede (from middle parts of Sweden) so I do edit and follow swedish articles as well, but not as much. QED237 (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

First only - I'm sorry for the phrase "from where did You come" , I sooner ment "Why , right now" (in connection with Rckless). Second - I haven't had the benefit of visiting the 1966 World Cup venue of Goodison Park, but I assume I like it, and its old style. Of the current PL teams, I like Everton best. (I've also watched them twice, in Septemer/October 1986 at White Hart Lane, Tottenham won 2:0 but Everton won the league. I also watched a boring nil-nil draw at Highfield Road, Coventry in March 1997) Then, I'm not attempting to impose anything in perticular. I thought article needed some history about the number of teams during the years. And Allsvenskan has runned for 89 years in a row (I don't believe that's the case in Switzerland- and obviously not for nations involved in the second world war or Spain during the civil war). Then there were two errors, if You are native Swede, then my reference reg. Friends Arena wouldn't be a problem would it ? 50.000 for football. And at the very least goal ratio came before number of scored goals, elsewise BoIS would have become second 1n 1937/38. In any case BoIS has never ended better than 3rd. Why on earth would the table be written as it is elsewise ? Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally get what you are saying (I think) and you are probably right. Yes I can read and understand your attendance source, but in this case it all comes down to what source is most reliable and in this case for a football article to me it is de official swedish football association (which have 54 000). If you open a discussion on talkpage and find several unbiased/unrelated reliable sources that say 50,000 then we can say Swedsih football association are wrong but I dont think we can do that yet. About the table I would also like more sources (not wikipedia) as the only one I have seen had them second. QED237 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind that one, but I have now provided TWO EXTERNAL tables for the 1937/38 season, proving Landskrona came 3rd Boeing720 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said above you should not edit article at all unitl you opened discussion at articlee talk so everyone can talk and discuss these new sources. QED237 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Do You reffer also to obvious errors ? There isn't any delicate matters in this article, not obvious anyway. Boeing720 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landskrona BoIS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Georg "Åby" Ericsson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Georg "Åby" Ericsson. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Georg_Ericson. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Georg_Ericson – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming articles

Hi there. I noticed that you accidentally created an article under the wrong title. Did you know you can rename articles? See the help page I linked for more information. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for this very useful information. I supposed there had to be a way, but the help pages are not always easy to find things in. I have alerted thw two other editors of what I have done. (Due to the history credentials). Do You suggest I should remove the new article, and change the name - using the help You have given me. Or is it OK as is ? (I would never had done this thing if it wasn't I that have made most edits). Thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Georg_Ericson

The real problem is not your creation of the misspelled name, thats easy to handle. But this article is an actual duplicate of Georg_Ericson which existed before you created either of your articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh ! That one I had no knowlidge of. Had a brief look and googled him. Both Georg Ericson and Georg Ericsson occur. However it seems like correct spelling indeed is "Georg Ericson" - however in Sweden he was always reffered to as "Åby". And I do now see what You mean. There is no doubt, the "Georg Ericson" article is the original and hence both Georg "Åby" Ericsson and George "Åby" Ericsson ought to be deleted. Due to both spelling of his Family name ("Eriksson" is most common after "Erikson" I believe) and the knickname "Åby" toghter, made it really difficult to get a red link when I wrote the Sonny Johansson article. This is my explination. I'm for a speedy deletion of both mentioned article and improving the Georg Ericson article. Thanks for Your efforts, Gaijin42 ! Boeing720 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving

You should be able to move an article, see Help:Moving a page. You can request that others move an article at WP:RM. After a copy paste move, please create w WP:REDIRECT (see example). Copy paste moves do not move article's history, to have those merged please make a request as explained at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves (only if others have edited the article, or if you care about having all your edits in one place). I hope this helps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks for all these enlightenments. I shall remember it for the future. But in this perticuar case, it turned out that there actually already existed an article about Georg Ericson, not only whithout -e (Georg), but also without nickname "Åby" - and a very rare spelling of the elsewise very common Familyname (Ericson), normally spelled "Eriksson" or "Erikson" but with a "C" and onlöy one "S" in the middle, is as rare as "Erixon". So I have now improved that article instead. The rules state that if an article already exist, then that shall be improved instead of initiating a new one. I just couldn't find it before. So only article that will be left is Georg Ericson. Even if he never was reffered to as any other name than "Åby" (as I recall it), the nicknames are probably best to avoid in the article names, I gather. But again thanks for all Your input, I will remember these hints in the future. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If you reply here (or anywhere else than my talk page), keep in mind I am not notified of that unless you me (it's like sending a letter, if you put it here, it's like leaving it in your home - people rarely come and visit stranger's houses to check if they might have letters for them). For alternative spellings, it is always the best to create redirects. And if you think the article is under a wrong name, and you cannot move it by yourself, then you can list it at RM page. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As I stated - the article already did exist even before I misspelled Georg "Åby" Ericson's name. But I wasn't aware of the unusual spelling of "Åby's" Familyname. There is no need for further changes of this perticular article name. But I do thank You for your help, that I will remember in the future. Article name was (and is) Georg Ericson and nothing else. Thanks for your efforts Boeing720 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Copenhagen Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ILS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

While your theory that was added to the article is the most likely one made so far, it is speculation and uncited. Another editor beat me to removing it for those reasons.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I do fully understand. But I did add that it was a speculation. I usually do not make such speculative contributions. But since it is possible explination, I thought of all those who search for answers (relatives to the victims). I'm sorry for this and will not repeat it. Boeing720 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I had actually made a very similar speculative model for the missing plane on the article talk page last week.  :) Wzrd1 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All the best Boeing720 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No original research

Hello Boeing720, thank-you for your contribution to The Adventures of Tintin, especially the contribution of the double album list. For your contributions that were reverted, please don't take offense but also please don't un-revert, instead please re-read WP:OR. All contributions must be accompanied by WP:RS. If you have any questions please feel free to ask and I will try to help. Prhartcom (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

First thought - So why keep the the list of "dubble albums" then ? Those lackes source aswell and could hence be reguarded as OR aswell. It's rather obvious that Rastapopolous appears as a friend in "Cigars of Pharao's" and in the beginning of "The Blue Lotus" - but here followes the explination [like I almost wrote, many albums became published in between, in Sweden. That caused me almost a decade of confusion !], and I still think this perticulary statement could have been kept. And there is indeed a Messerschmidt-alike airplane (representing an enemy nation) in an extra large picture of "The Broken Ear". But OK, Hergé's own problems have I got from a TV-documentary about Hergé, that I watched a few years ago now. Also that Hergé changed the "suicide note" in "Explorers of the Moon" [In the Swedish Album, I think he was called "Wulf"], a bald man that served enemy interests. It really was stated in the TV-documentary, that Hergé, after he had spoken with a Catholic priest that he knew, changed the contence of the letter, so it could be interpreted as a vain attempt to get back to Earth instead of a suicide letter. [That seems to fit with the Swedish translation] But OK I don't even remember the name of the documentary. So I do agree in Your criticism concerning these matters in general. But I had red large parts of the article, and when things are not only unsourced but also obviously untrue, then the standard of the article gets affected, and it becomes easier to "add a line" that You are certain of, but lack source of. What I'm thinking of is for instance that someone had written that Dr Müller was an 1."evil" 2."German" 3."Nazi" doctor. Doctor? - Yes!, Evil? - Yes, a crook atleast. German? - Plausible but not certain (could be Swiss, Austrian or an Italian from Southern Tirol - or even American), but -main issue- there is absolutley nothing in "The Black Island" that suggests that he is a nazi. (nor in "Land of the Black Gold"). [Not in Swedish editions atleast] I will not make any reverts, not of this issues without proper source, that I've mentioned so far. However the statement that the three first albums deals with several unrelated events, rather than one single storyline, as all the others - that I think is both so obvious that source isn't needed, and an imperative fact. The word "childish" was perhaps not necessary though. Any further thoughts ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I looked for a reliable source to support your "double album" edit and somewhat found it in Jean-Marc Lofficier's Pocket Essential Tintin but have not added the reference to your edit yet but may soon (I would first like to find it referenced in another of my Tintin books as well). Best to leave the analysis of Tintin to the published authors such as those you see in the article's bibliography; our job is to restate their work it in Wikipedia. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misunderstood that one. You have not red the Tintin albums ? Or only some, perhaps ?Boeing720 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I have read all the Tintin albums, but also most of the books in the bibliography. It is from these secondary sources that I and other editors found the material that is in the Tintin article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe in what I would call "anti-OR-madness". You are right when it comes to things that deals with Hergé, like I've already stated. But I still think that statements like "Captain Haddock first appears in 'The Crab with the Golden Claws'" or the "dubble-albums" are so obvious that any extern interpreting is unnecessary. (It's f.i. OK to state that "Paris is the Capital of France" without any source, likewise are less complex use of mathemathics and logics allowed. For instance if both the number of inhabitants of Texas and its surface are soucered, then it's OK to calculate the population density. Similar simple logical conclutions are also allowed, have I red. See the help pages, I assume You know which ones better than me) And have a look at [my old favorit album] Flight 714, here the main source is the album itself. (However I don't like when the entire storyline is revealed from beginning to end, and in detail. And I feel the same about novels and films, but that's an other subject). Doesn't any of Your secondary sources comment the Messerschmidt-alike airplane in "The Broken Ear", by the way ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, those types of statements are not necessary to cite. Other types are. Learn as much as you can by watching others and reading featured articles. There is much uncited material in the Tintin albums still, even though I have been working my way slowly through them.

Oh, the areoplane? No, that one is not mentioned at least in Tintin: The Complete Companion for that album, but it says that a Wibault of Air France is used in The Broken Ear on page 12, and it says a Liore et Olivier loaded with mail is on page 59. It says Tintin gets away in a Messerschmidt in King Ottokar's Scepter and also says one appears in The Calculus Affair.

I need to go now so let's not continue this here, but if you need to communicate on the Talk pages of specific articles about specific points I'll watch for it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(Only The Calculus Affair is from after WW2 and is hence not a delicate matter) Cheers, I will study featured articlesBoeing720 (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to fill in the character's biographies in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters that are almost completely empty (and marked as so) such as "Ivan" and the others you see there, I would be grateful (even if the text is not cited, but is accurate), so feel free. Prhartcom (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I sure can have a look at it, but an obstacle for me is that certain English names differs from Swedish ones. For instance "Snowy" is called "Milou", "professor Calculus" is "professor Kalkyl", "Thompson and Thompson" is "Dupond & Dupont" (usually "Dupontarna" together) and the palace is called "Moulinsart". But by comparing with the album articles, perhaps I can make some contributions there. Thanks for the "Feutured Articles" information, by the way. Boeing720 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landskrona BoIS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conny Karlsson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

fixed Boeing720 (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:IFK Landskrona football club around 1910.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:IFK Landskrona football club around 1910.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

While we're at it, it would be nice if you would give credit to whoever actually created File:Harry Dahl in Landskrona BoIS colours.JPG, because it is clearly not your "own work".— Swedishpenguin | Talk 23:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

From Wikimedia , I have learned that all images , published in Sweden until 1967 are allowed. I believe this photo to be older than from then, don't You ? This issue has come up over many pictures before. I don't know how this rule came up or why. But it's a fact. But what are You up to, if I may ask ? You and your plausible or possible sock puppet. This is English Wikipedia and it's not usual to become annoyed by so very simple and undelicate matters as the history of a football club. I have asked for administrational help about the headlines. Boeing720 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what headlines you're referring to. And sock puppet? What? What is supposed to be my sock puppet? Furthermore, I'm not annoyed. Your extra use of bold and double-question marks on talk pages, as well as starting to tell other users what they have the "right" to do, suggests that you might be getting annoyed though. Maybe taking this too seriously? But. As far as, you know, the matter at hand (the photo) is concerned, the problem isn't when it was published. It's that you uploaded it as "own work". Which it is clearly not. So either demonstrate that it was published so long ago that it is public domain, or an admin will delete it. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 00:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha this is making me laugh now. You're saying I'm annoyed, and you're the one throwing around accusations of sock puppeteering. That's hilarious. How about a little WP:AGF when people are trying to help fix your Wikipedia contributions?— Swedishpenguin | Talk 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

About Sock Puppets - If it isn't You then it is Reckless123 - and you're both Swedish, and you sooner seems to de-create the work of others, instead of making contributions yourselves. The picture you've marked for speedy delation is maked "own work" only due to the fact that it's an already Public Domain image that's reproduced. It was first published in some Scanian newspaper. Just for You knowledge. I would NOT have used the "own work" if it wasn't for Wikimedia people already have told me to do so for free/public domain pictures. And you seem also more keen of threaten other users with WP:THIS or WP:THAT. It's a very strange behaviour. If I was as young as You are, I might have been scared away from Wikipedia. But I'm soon about to become "GUBBE" - thats fifthy years old (for non-Swedish understanders, the vast majority of mankind I would argue) - so I'm not that easy to scare. Why not become creative insted, write something about your the history of your favorite ice-hockey team ?? [Note the extra q-mark, just for You. Wnt another ?]

GoodnightBoeing720 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Boeing, please accept the fact that we are working to create a better Wikipedia and to help you. You need to accept our help and once in a while review the possibility that you are wrong. The correct tag for these old photos are not "own work", you clearly didn't take the photo yourself. The correct tag for old Swedish photos is {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, see this image that I uploaded as an example. For this tag to be correctly applied the photo must have been taken before 1944, not 1967. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Swedishpenguin I fail to see that's the case. I hope it's different with You. And please remember that I fully agreed in removing the silly list of "well-known supporters" which I find silly. About the photo of IFK Landskrona, I can not to 100% rule out that around five people at Wikimedia has explained that "Photos published in Sweden until 1967 are Public Domain also may be wrong. The University article isn't its first publication. Photos (& negative) are stored at "Minnesbanken" at Landskrona Stadsmuseum, which is one of (atleast) two archives to which former photographers have donated their own archives. Typically for non-commercial use. Of course I must accept a verdict that I'm not hoping for. But Swedishpenguin thinks its funny. Obviouslly, and removed the picture prematurely.

And I have indeed been in this situation before (though at Wikimedia rather than Wikipedia), and awfterwards the "deleting suggestor" always has appologized, stating he wasn't aware of the Swedish exception. I do not take any credit for the photo, but in principle have I only made a re-distribution of a photo that already is Public Domain. Let's see what cames out of it. Anyway - I very much appriciate Your hint about how to deal with such matters in the future - Thanks, and I mean it. I have made a complaint of Swedishpenguine (that I feel only is de-creative). I have also asked for help for edit warring. I don't think a headline that describes a (well-referered) text automatically is POV, although I see your point that it may be the case. And I'm not stubburn, and am also open for compromises. Just study my talk-page above. And in article Allsvenskan I did listen to You and only contributed with the table of different formats, if You remember. I have made no formal complaints of You, but it would be a benefit for the Landskrona BoIS article if User:Swedishpenguin could stay away. I'm not a boastful person, but concider myself as having a rather good general knowledge. Hence I know that "white/blue collar" isn't understood by nost Swedish talking persons. "Middle class" and "Working class" are better for describing Sweden more than 100 years ago, and I'm rather sure of that it's the case also in the UK. But I really appriciated Your last message. By the way there is just left the Allsvenskan period 2002-2005 left, where the first half of the 2001 season became an unexpected , but short time. After the 2005 relegation , the club has not beeb close to promotion. Some players (if not already) that may be mentioning is Daniel Nannskog and Jörgen Pettersson. And also the "Rädda Varven/Save the Shipyards" event at Nya Ullevi in 1978, I'm currently hopeing for a donated photo of that event. OK - in the big picture ?

Admin help requested for your behavior at Landskrona BoIS

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your repeated reverts to edits by myself and User:Reckless182. The thread is Behavior of Boeing720 at Landskrona BoIS. The discussion is about the topic Landskrona BoIS. Thank you. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 14:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not looked yet at the rights and wrongs of your edit war there, but the edit summary provided here is inappropriate. Please see what is and is not vandalism, and please do not repeat this behaviour. --John (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The background to what has happened here, is that two other users, for a rather long time now, have attempted to destroy the history part of the article. Which I find to be well referenced and containing a University level composition and other good sources. Their so called "help" have included re-writing of the material in the way that statements needs references (that preaviously was sourced) aswell as unnecessarily shorten down the prehistory of the club. What led to a merging between two clubs and which other sports club that played importaint part of making football popular in Landskrona. Allegations of all kinds of "WP:THIS" , "WP:THAT" like the article being POV, aswell as harassment at my talk page. Especially one of them. Their intentions are disruptive, possibly due to the fact that the history part now has become longer than most history parts of Swedish sports clubs - or possibly that I don't think that history must be boiled down to table format. I wanted to tell the history of Landskrona BoIS by the use of available sources. When I've put destroyed part of the text back, I may have done it in an unconsciously wrong way. But it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the two "helpers". I have called for help by administrators in several ways now, and I thank You for your intervention. By the way, may I ask - is putting a headline to a certain time period POV, even if waht the headline states is sourced in the following part ? Like Helsingborgs IF history part (I'm not certain of how well referenced those headlineas are, bur assume they are). Reason one of the "helpers" states that it's POV to do so. Thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think having proper section titles is inherently a POV problem. It's just difficult to avoid end up labeling an entire period of a club's history based on what Wikipedia editors think is the best way of characterizing that period. The problem isn't just about section titles though. Sports articles in general tend to be edited by supporters of that club, and the language used tends to clearly reflect the attitudes of the person writing it, something that can be hard to avoid. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 21:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this an attempt of discussing the matter, as adults ? If so, I might concider coming along. But so far obsticles at every thinkable matter, is what I've recieved. But if You really do mean well, we can possibly solve the matter. Whith "You" I mean both Swedishpenguin and Reckless. In my "prehistory" text every statement is taken from a source, whithout a trace of own conclutions. Regarding Reckless text I object to f.i. "white collar / blue collar", since we have to take the general knowlidge in concideration. And again why write an ending statement that calls for [citation needed]? You also avoid that the source states that "Banan" was the third real sports ground ever i Sweden (after Malmö and Lund), and that the space in the middle became the first football pitch in Landskrona. Boeing720 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Could you please stop being so hostile? There's nothing fun about creating an encyclopedia together with people who are this hostile.
• I don't know why you are still complaining about the white collar/blue collar terms. Considering that your native language is clearly not English, I'm a bit surprised you can be so adamant about English terminology. It's a really common set of words. There is nothing unusual or misleading about them at all, despite whatever you seem to think they represent.
• You seem to think this article is a Christmas tree upon which we're supposed to hang every single fact even remotely related to the topic. It's not a Christmas tree. And it's not a book. It's an encyclopedia article. The article about BoIS doesn't need to go on endlessly in really bad English about the history of sports in Landskrona and what year a cycling track became municipal property. Reckless and Fenixdown seemed to understand that, but you seem to think you own this article now and if you want something in it than you decide. It's kinda sad. If you want to write a book about sports in Landskrona then go do that. But this is an encyclopedia article. About the football club.— Swedishpenguin | Talk 11:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Swedishpengiun. Reg. another user we came in trobles from start, some month ago. We argued over whats asutally called goal average, but thats history now. And I have made efforts to solve thing out. You state "I'm here to write about ice-hockey in Sweden. So why no keep yourself to that ? [[Landskrona BoIS] It's an article at English Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less. Try to see Manchester United history (former Newton Heath LYR Football Club) then You might realise that the early history of the club is imperative. And not at all "A Chistmas three". Boeing720 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that the early history isn't interesting. But make it the early history of the club. Not the early history of the ownership of a cycling track that would eventually become a football pitch. Also... I'm here to write about anything I find interesting at the moment. Just like you. Honestly, now you're telling me what I should and should not be writing about. Could you please stop being so hostile? — Swedishpenguin | Talk 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't You know that as late as in the mid 1980's there were ony Råsunda and Eyravallen (Behrn's Arena today) that lacked tracks around the pitch ? Athletics, cykling, speedway are some sport that has been exerted together with football at sports-grounds ? There are very many such examples. Further all sports in Sweden was amateur based (like the Olympics also once were), with very little money in. So sport clubs helped each other. Especially in the very early days. Landskrona Velocipedklubb did though built "Banan" themselves - and as the article states, people gamled on the cyklists, like at horses today. But after the first summer Olympics ever, 1896 in Athens, the parliament (Riksdagen) prohibited totalizator gambling. Landskrona got the third sports ground ever within Sweden due to Velocipedklubben, and this contributed to the earliest football in Landskrona. It's importaint facts. Background. Whithout it football (with FA-rules) may have been delayed for a decade. There was also the military sports ground at Excersisfältet - but this didn't become available for civilians until the last regiment moved out of Landskrona, I believe it was around 1925. That sports ground hav been used for small football clubs ever since. But that's Landskrona history, not Landskrona BoIS history. But who built the first home of Landskrona BoIS is indeed a part of the club history, in my opinion. Don't understand your lock up at this issue. Boeing720 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landskrona IP, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

-fixed Boeing720 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Cities on the baltic Sea

@ Boeing,

with your edits of Baltic Sea I'd think you were from Kansas or Alice Springs … :)

Yours', Ulamm (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually living in Landskrona, Scania, Sweden by the coast of Øresund - not the Baltic Sea, and after a ten minute walk or 5 minutes of cycling, I can see Copenhagen in the south-west. Øresund is sooner a part of Cattegat than of the Baltic Sea. The marine plant and animal life of Øresund is way above the Baltic sea. And here we are talking of different magnitudes. Northern Øresund has around 600-650 different marine species, while the Baltic main bassin (around Gotland) only counts 52 marine species. Also geographically, the eastern part of Øresund equals the western coast of Sweden. Øresund may be a very peripher part of the Baltic Sea, but also a peripher part of Cattegat-Skagerack. But is usually, like the other Danish straits labeled as a sea of its own. Regarding Norrkæping, this city is located at the river Motala ström and isn't considered as a coastal city all, and Stockholm is located at the outlet of Lake Mälaren. Only the more remote parts of Stockholm's archipelago is located at the Baltic Sea itself. While very obvious towns and cities like Nynäshamn, Kalmar, Visby, Oskarshamn, Västervik, Karlskrona, Åhus, Ystad, Simrishamn and Trelleborg all are located at the main Baltic bassin, without any mentioning at all. Nor are the Danish towns Rønne, Nexø and Allinge (all located at Bornholm). And if we include the Bottnian Gulf, Norrtälje, Gävle, Hudiksvall, Sundsvall, Umeå, Piteå, Skellefteå, Luleå and many other, are lacking. And if listing Baltic Sea cities by their inhabitants, (for what purpose ?), please use the actual size of the city. Copenhagen was rated as 560.000 inhabitants, wich corresponds to the municipality of (central) Copenhagen, excluding the exclave of Frederiksberg (with 105.000 inhabitants living surrounded by Copenhagen). But the best size of Copenhagen is to add the provinces

1. Province Byen København 728.243 people at 179 km2 (Central part of Copenhagen + some unhabitated islands, see below)
2. Province Københavns Omegn, 530.612 people at 342 km2 (Outer areas of Copenhagen)
3. Province Nordsjælland, 450.245 people at 1449 km2 (Northern suburbs of Copenhagen, North Zealand)
4. Province Østsjælland, 239.016 people at 808 km2 (Southwest suburbs of Copenhagen, Køge bay & Roskilde)
5. Total 1.948.116 people at 2.769 km2 (The Copenhagen Metropolitan area, which equal the Copenhagen public transport area. Unlike Region Hovedstaden, Bornholm is excluded and the southwestern suburbs included)
6. Density 703 inhabitants/km2 - I believe Stockholm has around 2.050.000 inhabitants but at a land area of 6500 km2

So - if Copenhagen still is listed as a "Baltic Sea coast city" , then it must be listed ahead of Helsinki and atleast equal to Stockholm. Only St Petersburg is undisputed the largest city on the list.

• Source to inhabitants of the Danish Provinces http://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/befolkning-og-befolkningsfremskrivning.aspx (below the population pyramide) , column 2014Q1 (first 3 months of 2014)
• Source to the area of the same four provinces http://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/areal/areal-for-kommuner-og-regioner.aspx In these figures the almost unhabitated islands Saltholm and Peberholm aswell as the unused enlarginment of westen part of Amager island. If the "city-listing part" of the elsewise fairly good Baltic Sea article had been of better quality, I may have been less likely to have pulled the trigger. Further, I must strongly dismiss all rumors about my emigration to Australia or United States. - :) Boeing720 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have read, too, that oceanographic science prevers a line through the southern Danish Islands as the limit between the Baltic Sea and the Kattegat. Even by that definition, Kieler Bucht is a true part of the Baltic sea. Everybody defines Flensburg harbour as the westernmost edge of that sea.
• And by historical aspects, Kronborg Slot as the old site of Øresundstolden mustn't be forgotten. I don't know, where the post was on Storebelt. Wasn't it Nyborg?
• In Stockholm , you know, Norrströmmen is very short. In the west of the old city center, it gets the water of Mälaren, and in the east of it, it releases this water into Saltsjön. Just the name demonstrates, that the chemical constistance of this bay is relatively maritime (doubtless, the Salzhaff on Mecklenburg coast contains a bit more salt :).--Ulamm (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• I won't object, if you actualize the population numbers.
• I think, it is o.k. to list the largest cities. Nevertheless, a ranking is often doubtful, as different administrative structures can cause very different numbers for structurally similar concentrations of population. Example: La ville des Bruxelles has less than 200,000 inhabitants, but Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest has a higher density of population and 1.154.635. --Ulamm (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I recon that in Germany, the Jutland peninsula formes a border between the North Sea and "not" the North Sea.

But is that a reason to put the Baltic border into seas with other names ? I would draw the lines from Rødby (DK) to Puttgarden (D) - and from Stevns Klint (DK) to Falsterbo (S). And all water between Cattegat and these borders of the Baltic sea, are the Straits. (Mostly Danish but also German and Swedish). Yes, in Øresund the Øresundstold was payed just south of the peak where Kronborg is located (where the ferries reside today) - but that hasn't got much to do with the border between Øresund/Cattegat and the Baltic Sea. However if You actually prefer it differently in Germany, then You are ofcource right. (But if You swim in Flensburg fjord, doesn't the water taste salt there ? It doesn't so at all in f.i. Ystad). The Bruxelles example is a Bull's eye regarding meassuring sizes of especially larger cities. Different rules applies to different nations. Also Paris can be described between 2,5 million up to 12 million all depending of where certain borders are drawn. Regarding Stockholm - well they usually do state that the city is located at the Baltic shores. But don't be fooles by the name "Saltsjön" it contains fresh water only. Further out in the archipelague the fresh water mixes with Baltic brackish water. (Brakish Baltic water is typically 7 PCU or 0,7 % by weight, in the main bassin, and that isn't much)

If You're putting Copenhagen back (as Baltic Sea nearby city), I suggest that Stockholm and Copenhagen shares the first place after St Petersburg. Helsinki is notably smaller. Swedish towns and cities that ought to be mentioned, I think is Trelleborg, Ystad, Simrishamn, Karlshamn, Karlskrona, Kalmar, Visby (and Danish Rønne at Bornholm), Västervik, Nynäshamn ought to be mentioned at the main bassin. Stockholm also, but hardly Norrköping. And towards the north atleast Gävle, Hudiksvall, Sundsvall, Härnösand, Örnsköldsvik, Umeå, Skellefteå, Piteå, Luleå and Haparanda. Umeå and Sundsvall are fairly large I've heared. I have never had a reason to visit the northern parts of Sweden. Very cold in the winter and lots of mosqitos in the summer. All the best Boeing720 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just done real work for a proper presentation of the most important affluents. I'v edited it in German, English and Dutch, but I didn't dare a Swedish translation.

Its the principle of the open source project of Wikipedia, that the work is shared by many authors, but even more participants have to be aware, that no nonsense is entered.

Of course, each language has its own grid to describe the world, but scientific definitions ought to be compatible. Normally, in publications as well as in international meetings, specialists from all countries try to harmonize their definitions.

I hope, you know the map http://www.smhi.se/sgn0102/n0205/havsomr/havsomr_plansch.pdf

Of course, it is much easier for you than for me, to ask the specialists of SMHI and Lantmäteriet for exact definitions of any waterbody marked in this map.--Ulamm (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen this perticular map before, but it seems to tell the river areas on land and lots of different seas, or parts of seas, and something about depths (but the colour along some cost lines equal the colour of the very deep Skagerak). The map includes also everything from lakes in Russia to Limfjorden in Denmark. Do You want me to translate a map into Swedish ? I suppose "waterbody" means "sea". Fair enough, around Sweden staring from the northern west coast anti-clock wise, in Swedish "Skagerack" / "Skagerrak" (both seems to be valid, and I've even seen Skagerak) ),"Kattegatt" (in the southernmost part "Laholmsbukten" between Halmstad and Båstad, followed by "Skälderviken") , "Öresund", (You could possibly say "Arkonasjön", but I have frankly never heard this in Swedish - it's simlply "Östersjön" - the Eastern Sea), though "Hanöbukten" is labeled at the Scanian east coast, "Kalmarsund" (between the mainland and Öland island). Then we have to a jump up to between Sweden and Åland, "Ålands hav", and the entire bay north of Åland islands are "Bottniska viken" (but this name is very rarely used). Instead the southern part of the sea north of Åland is "Bottenhavet", and the most northern part is "Bottenviken" and between the latter two, where the distance between Sweden and Finland is a little narrower, is called "Kvarken". (You could say Bottniska viken = Bottenhavet + Kvarken + Bottenviken, where Kvarken is just a small part) The water between Estonia and Finland is "Finska Viken". Among the Danish straits "Stora Bält" between Zealand and Fyn and "Lilla Bält" between Fyn and Jutland. And "Fehmarn Bält" between Fehmarn and Lolland, and "Fehmersund" (like in German) between Fehmarn and the German mainland. "Danzigbukten" has been in use preaviously, but feels forgotten. All other parts of the Baltic Sea is "Östersjön" (which includes all waterbodys south-east of Øresund; I always use the Danish spelling at English wikipedia). There are also bays up in the north, but I'm not so good at those parts. However "Gävleviken" is outside Gävle, 200 km north of Stockholm. The lakes in Sweden are spelled in Swedish at the map. I hope this was of some help. [But of cource also Øresund has Lundåkrabukten, Lommabukten and Höllviken at the Scanian side and spelled in Swedish, and Nivå bugt, Kalveboderne and Køge Bugt at the Danish side, spelled in Danish. And the bay at northern Zealand is (in Danish) "Isefjorden", whith an appendix called "Roskilde Fjord", the water between Lolland and Zealand is "Smålandsfarvandet" in Danish] Good luck Boeing720 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I understand that map quite well, but some sea areas marked are described perfectly, others not completely. That is the reason of my suggestion to you contact the Swedish autorities.
• My second suggestion was, that you might translate the table of main rivers that I've edited in en:Baltic Sea as well as in de:Ostsee, to use it in sv:Östersjön, too.--Ulamm (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you tell me (exactly) what to ask, in English, then I can translate it into Swedish. And if You get a reply, I can translate it back to English. Thats the best I can do for You. But It's no problem. Regarding the rivers, - do You refer to the bright blue table ? Swedish names are

• Neva
• Wisla [Have never heared about Vistula], Weichsel in older litterature
• W.Dvina - unkown to me, sorry
• Njemen [may be old, but I think this still is correct Swedish]
• Kemijoki [I don't think there is a Swedish name, but someone Swedish-speaking person in Finland are better to ask]
• Oder
• Lule älv (it's possible to capitalize also "Älv") The word "älv" is Northern Swedish for "river". While "flod" is used for "river" everywhere else than in Sweden. You say "Elbe är en flod." (Elbe is a river).
• Narva (the name is famous in Swedish history)
• Torne älv

Boeing720 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Qualification to Swedish Allsvenska 1970 Sonny Johansson scores for Landskrona BoIS.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Qualification to Swedish Allsvenska 1970 Sonny Johansson scores for Landskrona BoIS.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [4], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Werieth (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Donated to me and Wikipedia by the former photographer Bertil Persson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Donated to me and Wikipedia by the former photographer Bertil Persson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [5], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Werieth (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Landskrona BoIS players in court.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Landskrona BoIS players in court.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [6], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Werieth (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caravelle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dresden bombing

I've removed your posts there - at first I wondered if you meant them for the talk page, but I don't think you did. The style is far too chatty, the material itself is basically your own interpretation - see WP:NOR, and the WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yhanks. Fair enough. You are correct, my edit at the end of the lead, wasn't connected to what I wrote at the talk page. (not directly anyway). And You are right, a lead is ment to be a summary of the article. But I do though object to any OR accusation. My edit was a reaction of the last centence of part below, in the very end of the lead.

"Large variations in the claimed death toll have fueled the controversy. In March 1945, the Nazi government ordered its press to publish a falsified casualty figure of 200,000 for the Dresden raids, and death toll estimates as high as 500,000 have been given.[10] The city authorities at the time estimated no more than 25,000 victims, a figure which subsequent investigations, including one commissioned by the city council in 2010, support.[11]"

And found it to be POV, due to lack of importaint information. Which I attempted to balance. And since it already was in the lead, I found no better solution at the time. Please note it's largely the last centance that I object to. First from where does the phrase "no more than" come from ? Second, after three huge airraids within 36 hrs, in a virtual firestorm, and in a dissolving nation, 11 weeks away from its unconditional capitulation at all fronts, including destoyed lines of communication, and with little means, low capability, low ability, presumably also low priority (as fires should extinguish and burials be done) and even a lack of lust to make any thorough investigation, and even lacking the competence needed, the initial German death toll may be just as unsafe as the figures of Gestapo (which were 200.000). Confusion between "buried bodies" and actual number of deaths, may have been involved. And we must remember that "the original German figures" became interpreted through the RAF (and American AF ?) before it was published. More precisely, still "the original 25.000 figure", has never been described more accurate than as "German", "local police", "local authorities" or "Stapo in Dresden" (Stapo was the open national police, Ge-Stapo was the secret national police), to my knowlidge. So the initial source, may even be any intercepted radio message to Berlin or even "the best (=including lowest death toll) mentioned" of many such intercepted radio meassges. I've previously attempted to find out how the Western Allied got their source, without any luck. The true number of deaths will remain a subject of historical interest for many years ahead. The true number of deaths cannot be build on any old war-time figures/propaganda, and political commissions cannot handle such matters. (Just remember the Warren commission about the Kennedy assasination) It's my opinion that most historicans, that has delt with this issue, gives higher figures than 25,000. Even by excluding all sources that states really extreme figures and historicans like David Irwing, many (a majority ?) suggest between 35,000 and 130,000. Or there about. There certainly also must have been a very good reason to why Winston Churchill condemned the Dresden attack, but no other. Boeing720 (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Churchill's comments were far from "condemning" it. And in any case we are far into WP:OR here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Again "The city authorities at the time estimated no more than 25,000 victims, a figure which subsequent investigations, including one commissioned by the city council in 2010, support." In shorter- I only am asking Which city authorities ? And what subsequent investigations ? 83.249.169.163 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Sorry wan't logged in got here through Outlook Express Boeing720 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted your latest edit on this article, as it presents facts which could only have been recognised retrospectively (i.e. "the last Nazi Germany military offensive" and "the Red army had launched their immeasurable and final offensive") and which therefore could not be relevant to the allies' deliberations which led up to the bombing of Dresden. Alfietucker (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First You could have waited for my comment at the talk page. I frankly don't understand what You mean. The statement "By the end of 1944 Germany was retrieting on all fronts" simply isn't true. They gathered much of their remaining resources and attacked through the Ardennes. The offensive launched by the Red Army at 14 January was their largest in the war.

Boeing720 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess a lot of us do it from time to time (start making a fairly major edit and only explain it on the talk page afterwards). But it's probably good practice - particularly if you say in your edit summary "see talk page" - to make sure you have explained what you are doing there *before* doing the edit on the article. As it was, I went to the talk page and found no such explanation, which is why I was inclined to revert. I'm glad you have since posted there, and I understand better what you were trying to do. Alfietucker (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand it better now. Thanks. In this perticulary case I simply noticed that the "edit summary" wasn't enough, though. It wasn't strategical a plan of any kind. But of cource in general, it's better to use the talk-page first. And if it's a delicate change, or a significal change of a lead, one must also wait for answers, I think. However in this perticular case, atleast from my point of view, I thought that I only corrected an error. Since the Ardenner-offensive, according to many historicans, was a foolish idea from a German perspective, I feel it's wrong to indirectly deny it. Hitler burned lots of his remaining military resources at an offensive that after the initial small success failed completly, and this contributed to shorten down the duration of the war, many has written before [like William L Shirer in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"]. In any case my change had no direct impact on the Background chapter as such, I think. Finally, in general, it's good that "people are awake", so to speak. Your reverting and comments are not in vain, and I will remember what You have stated in the future. Boeing720 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also now read Your edits, and they are fine. Boeing720 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erich von Manstein. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is very strange recieving this warning from You, since I have followed all your guidelines. And I have also asked You for help.

Mungo Melvin is a major source for the entire article. He clearly, like Shirer and Knopp gives von Manstein full credit for the plan that Hitler and von Brauchitsch eventaully used.

Please do explain why this mustn't be mentioned ?

http://www.thehistoryreader.com/modern-history/manstein-sichelschnitt/

Last part

"There can be little doubt that the Fuhrer’s discussions with Jodl and Schmundt on 13 February had already primed his coincidental thinking about Sedan as the easiest place to cross the Meuse. In contrast, Manstein, as Frieser has rightly pointed out, was ‘thinking all the way to the Channel Coast’. Hence if Manstein shares with Halder and Hitler the credit for the adoption of Sichelschnitt in its final form, the original operational concept was very much his alone. As General Graf von Kielmansegg has made perfectly clear: ‘The idea was entirely and totally Manstein’s.’ Halder’s contribution thereafter from March to May 1940, whilst Manstein remained banished in Stettin, lay in defending the new plan against all objections." I.o.w. Halder only contributed only at a tactical level, his own plans were rejected

Further all changes have been discussed at the talk page , prior to my changes. I do not understand this warning at all. Another user has got Franz Halder on his brain, but only talkes about a timeline that some Dilby has written. And which obviuosly is interpreted by the used. He ought to get the warning instead. Further , there were no "overweight" reg. the Manstein plan. It led to the fall of France and Dunqurque. And finally no one has precented any other contributer to the plan that eventually was chosen. "He was on of the planners.." simpli isn't good enough. Come up with the other supposed stategists through a good source if that now really is possible. Boeing720 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trial of Erich von Manstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Information on copyright

Your addition to Erich von Manstein has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC) has been answered at talk page Boeing720 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trial of Erich von Manstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

fixedBoeing720 (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Messianic events

Hi. I've redirected Messianic events to Jesus and messianic prophecy, which contains, at least, the prophecies pertaining to Jesus. I don't know whether you had in mind much more than what's already in that article, but if you have more to write than what's already there, please don't put personal communication into an article. If you want to take the time to write a proper article, or at least a core for one, it's best to do it in a draft, like in your own user space, and then create the article in public space when it's ready. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for this information. If I had found that page , I wouldn't have created "Messianic Events". So far have I only had a brief look at Jesus and messianic prophecy, but it seems to cover what I had inj mind. And since Wikipedia rules states (somewhere, but I'm sure because I've experienced a similar case before) that old articles must be improved rather than having a new article created. After Your information, I no longer see any call for the article I initiated. Hence it should be removed. If possible and if You know how, perhaps You could either inform me of how to erase (or delete) an article, or remove it Yourself ? In any case Your information was very much appriciated, thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgot. My intentions of creating the Messianic events article was to create something like the Jesus and messianic prophecy. (And now, to inspect the article in order to see if I can improve that article instead). I actually presumed that a such article existed - but was far from certain. I simply couldn't find any article that resembled what I had in mind. If I had put several hours of work (to begin with), they could very well be like "inventing the wheel again". Hence my comments before the article. It was obviously not the optimal way to continue. In retrospect, I should insted have asked some other Wikipedian contibuter with knowledge of such technical matters instead. I hope it hasn't caused any severe troubles. I will learn from this and not start an article in this manner in the future. I'm also greatful for Your informative (not angry) way of bringing this to my attention. Thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Sjöberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NASL. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Portrait of Sonny Johansson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Portrait of Sonny Johansson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reckless182 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I nominated this one for speedy deletion as it clearly belongs to "Bildbyrån" as you can see at the original url. Hopefully this was a mistake by you? --Reckless182 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that portraits was one of the exceptions for fair use. It was not uploaded at Wikipedia Commons. This photo is clearly a portrait, and Your news comes unexpected to me. But OK if You're sure of what You are doing, we better delete it. Have You found out what to do with the MFF-photo from the 1940's, by the way ? It's persumably taken at Råsunda and at a cup final, possibly. It's a Swedish picture. And clearly published in Sweden before 1967 (or 1969). But can we knick (legally) it somehow, You think ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had a second look at the webbpage. The URL is http://www.svenskafans.com/fotboll/c-440285.aspx and the picture is uncredited. A further search - media - only gives "http://www.svenskafans.com/image/7/211597/preview.jpg","JPEG image","0kB","500px x 676px(scaled to 194px x 245 px), - general,feeds,permissions and security gives nothing either. Under "media" there even is a downloading tool for full size. Where do I find "Bildbyrån" ? You state it's clearly Bildbyråns. May I ask how it is so very clear that the picture belongs to Bildbyrån ? And am I really wrong about portraits. I've been adviced about such issues before. However "my teacher" was possibly not the best, see for Yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Werieth Boeing720 (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you really saying that you can't the see the big text in the bottom right corner of the picture that says "BILDBYRÅN"? It clearly belongs to the them. It doesn't makes any difference that the image is a portrait. The only acceptable use of non-free images can be found here. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but no. There is only the picture. Since You wright "big" I'm really puzzeled. Do I need to make a screenshot ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I had a look at the enlarged photo, there is it possible to read. You're correct. But

I just made a screenshot of the page (as low resolution as possible). I'm sorry. But the text just looks like a white stripe at the webbsite. It was good of You to detect this. Boeing720 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armand Krajnc, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black belt, Scanian and Promotor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to Normandy landings

I followed the source links indicated, and did not find the "illustrated book" you refer to. Aside from the questionable assertion that a book's reliability as a source is lessened by the inclusion of illustrations, I'm not sure why you felt the material was worth removing. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "illustrated" - my mistake, there is though one such used in the Analysis section. (It's not about illustrations as such, but a book that is build on pictures and picture texts only or mainly, is in my opinion of lower value than a common historical book - just to answer that question. And we hardly lack better sources for an article like this)

But "The Germans had ordered French civilians, other than those deemed essential to the war effort, to leave potential combat zones in Normandy." - do You really suggest the Germans knew where the landings would be ? "Flint 2009" seem to be a university thesis, and if he really has written that the Germans had moved civilians due to the invasion, it must be of poor quality. If the Germans had known when and where they would of cource had strengthened their defence in Normandy instead. Possibly some civilians were moved due to German military installations etc, but not more in Normandy than in Flandres, Brittany and Holland etc. I find the statement silly, sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It might have helped for you to familiarise yourself with the sources rather than second-guess them. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for this advice. My main criticism remains though. It's very plausable the Wehrmacht moved some people away from the coast, all along the "Atlantic wall". Not to be nice in case of an invasion though, but in order to construct bunkers etc. The civilian death toll of D-day +1 and -1 (mainly due to the preparing bombings) was far higher than 3000. I may return when I find a more reliable source. Boeing720 (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just two links

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10877137/D-Day-French-torn-over-criminal-British-and-American-D-Day-bombings-of-Caen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/21iht-letter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 All the best Boeing720 (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Diannaa has discussed with you that the sources do not contradict each other. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No That was another, and French source.Boeing720 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North Germanic languages may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Had a look, the page appears to be intact in its syntax, as far as I can see. I gather others (or myself) have mended it. It was a while ago now. Boeing720 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Scanian issues

If you want to make constructive improvements articles on Scania, Scanian dialect(s) and Scanian issues in general, you really need to look point of view in the matter. It's very clear that you have strong, positive feelings about Scania, which is not a problem in itself. But you are setting aside a lot of critical thinking and the need to use reliable sources that are also neutral. For example, Scanian belongs to a group of Scandinavian dialects that used to be Danish, but then became Swedish due to political and cultural assimilation after Denmark lost it in the 17th century. Modern Scanian, however, is considered a dialect of Swedish. This is an uncontroversial view shared by most linguists (with some caveats). It's based on mutual intelligibility, if anything. Scanian is easier to comprehend for someone from Haparanda or Österbotten than the average Danish speaker. It is also a political definition, as is explained in North Germanic languages. You may disagree with those politics, but that's still the overwhelming majority view.

You've been disputing Scanian matters in several articles lately. You have added both personal views and content based on inappropriate sources like 333-årsboken[7] and the website of some random non-linguist at SJSU. Don't use these sources as they are unreliable as the work of non-experts with little or no recognition as writers of fact literature. There's a long list of linguistic references in Swedish language that you can use, for example. If you want to describe Scanian history, use the works of recognized historians from major publishers or universities, not pamphlet-like books sponsored by Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid and the likes.

I can see that you've been cautioned about your editing of other topics. If you continue making highly equally tendentious contributions in relation to Scanian article topics, a request for comments might be in order.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You first declares that Scanian isn't Swedish, states that SSF is "political extremists" and now Scanian is a part of the Swedish language. You simply have to make up Your mind ! Further You reject all sources that dosen't fit Your own points of views. "333 Årsboken" is only assembled by SSF, (which by the way is an unpolitical regional foundation, very far from extremistic in any sence) and has been written by close to 20 differant authors over a number of years, including Wilhelm Moberg! Boeing720 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never stated that SSF are "political extremists" nor have I claimed that Scanian isn't Swedish. Those are your words, not mine.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I read your post at Diannaa's talkpage, btw.[8] If you wish to argue for the use of 333-årsboken as a reliable source, you should make those you ask advice from aware of statements like this one from the introduction:

Stiftelsen vill peka på att det i en stat som den svenska inte finns plats för kulturell regional mångfald. Det skånska problemet lever vidare genom mediatystnad, förlöjligande och ständiga ansträngningar att pressa saken ner på rännstensnivå.Det är kanske så att skånelandsregionen är vår världs bästa exempel på historiskt förtryck, långvarigt förtigande och modern kollektiv självcensur i ett välmående samhälle.

"The foundation wishes to point out that in a state like the Swedish one, there is no place for cultural regional diversity. The Scanian problem lives on through media silence, ridicule and constant efforts to push the problem down to a gutter level. It might be that the Skåneland region is our world's best example of historic oppression, prolonged suppression and modern collective self-censorship in healthy society."

The same introduction compares Scanians with everything from Catalans to Inuits. Or in other words, people fighting to free themselves from an oppressive central government. It openly declares that a distinct political aim. That alone is a very good reason not to rely on it, but instead use sources that are written by professional historians.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Hi, Boeing720. Your addition of sourced content about Scanian communications at Scania is appreciated, but not so much your recent tendentious edits. Here, you removed a part that was needed for cohesion of the paragraph (with an aggressively opinionated edit summary) and here you added a lot of unsourced editorialising, for instance about the reasons why independence movements don't participate in elections — basically your own opinions and conclusions. Both edits seem designed to push a particular point of view — a point of view which you have made amply clear in your contributions to this discussion, namely a Scanian separatist political agenda. The removal of information here fits right in with that, too. Please edit neutrally. By the way, your attempts to smear User:Peter Isotalo with "allegories" about Stalinists in the same discussion are also unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

I see Peter Isotalo has been advising you above, apparently to little effect, so please note that this is a warning from an administrator. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

I've seen Your cooperation with Peter Isosalo at Your talk-page. Regarding Scania , I added references, like it was requested. There are no political separatist party in Scania. Must I prove a negative ? However there is a 4% limit, if a potitical party only does gets 3.99% nation wide, they are not given any mandates / MP's. Why ? - well-known rules, that exists in Sweden. Boeing720 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, could You just have a look at Talk:Scania-Strange formulation ? I've taken some of Your criticism to heart, and removed all "thoughts" about referendums, but also info about "Skånepartiet" who apparently got very few votes in an election. They got some attention back in the mid 80's through "närradio" - and mainly wanted liquor in "Konsum", as I can recall. Peter Isosalo uses a source - and (after the source) adds unsupported own thoughts about all minor Scanian parties to be anti-immigrational. Personally I also think the sentence is unnecessary complicated, hence I raised the question at the talk-page (the same issue as mentioned). Boeing720 (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at your question about the article when I have a bit more time. But I would hope you have seen Peter Isotalo's request for administrative assistance on my page. (Did you have a problem with him doing that? It's quite standard. You asked Diannaa for assistance, right?) The first thing he did there was to attempt to alert you to it — to "ping" you by linking your name, like this. That's supposed to give you an Echo alert that somebody has mentioned your name. Nobody was trying to keep you in the dark. In the row of links top right on every page (provided you're logged in to your account), there's a red figure between the "Boeing720" link and the "talk" link. That's for your alerts. Click on it to see who has mentioned you. When you have clicked on the figure, it will go down to zero and turn grey. Please click on my Echo alert link and read all about it. Compare also Piotrus' post above.

I also noticed you just said on the RSN noticeboard that you hadn't been aware of the most recent discussion (i. e. my question and Peter's reply, I assume), even though I'd made sure to ping you. Pinging somebody is a very handy way of telling people that you've mentioned them, and thus to alert them that they may want to respond. (With regard to the RSN discussion, most people also use their watchlist to see when a new comment is added to a discussion they're taking part in — are you aware of having a watchlist? These things all help.) Bishonen | talk 09:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

I'm aware there is a watchlist and the "watch this page" squares. I don't think I have missed many importaint edits though. The current RSN matter, do I of cource follow, since it was I who made this request. The "ping" in a Wikipedia context ? Sorry, but I have no knowledge of what that means. I once recieved a "Thanks" among the common notices, if this function is involved. My only connection to the internet, is a "Tower-PC" (nor am I interested in Facebook, Twitter and such "social media", guess I'm too old...) Thanks ! (: Boeing720 (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

.You have no knowledge of what "pinging" means in a Wikipedia context? You mean you don't understand my explanation of what it means, and also not the sentence "Please click on my Echo alert link and read all about it."? Did you click on the link? I'm beginning to find it rather uphill work trying to advise you. Is this a language problem? Tower PC's rule, and using the "ping" Echo alerts doesn't tend to turn Wikipedia into a "social medium", but merely to make editing more convenient, and to tell people (as a courtesy, mind you) that you have mentioned them in a discussion. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

Still tendentious

Your latest additions to Scania goes against almost everything we've discussed lately. This edit is especially bad since it's completely unreferenced and is more like an editorializing blog entry. It's also completely context in an article about an historical landskap. As before, the idea seems to be merely to promote your view of Scania as a region oppressed by Sweden's central government.

You have been informed quite clearly about policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. We've had fairly detailed discussions about several Scanian articles and topics. Your views of Scania as an oppressed region comparable to to Catalonia or even Wales appears entirely unfounded. So far, you have been unable to produce a single source that actually supports the views of insignificant organizations like SFF. That means it should be avoided since it would give the claims undue weight. SFF would only be relevant as a source when describing the organization itself. If you can show that it is even notable by itself.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SJ. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)