User talk:Lklundin/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lklundin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

I'm not sure what the problem is with the Snowden category. All persons who have not been convicted are presumed innocent, and I have never seen a category with a footnote attached to it.

I didn't make the edit because I have any particular sympathy for Snowden. Instead, the problem was that "persons charged with espionage" is vague because it does not indicate whether the person has been found guilty or not. It's much better to use a category that answers that question, because it's a more specific category.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I self-reverted my revert. I think in most jurisdictions it lies in the very nature of being charged with a crime, that one is presumed innocent while charged. It also lies in the nature of being charged, that the court has not yet decided whether the charged person has been found guilty or not. So I can imagine that others may get confused as well. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If you think there's room for improvement in the cats, by all means I'd like to discuss it with you. What was happening is that lots of Wikipedia biographies were getting both the "charged" and the "convicted" cats. And technically it's true that someone who has been convicted has also been charged, but it was incredibly redundant. Additonally, when you visited the category for people "charged", you saw convicted traitors mixed together with people who were found to be completely innocent, which created a kind of guilt by association, and related confusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, interesting point. I think it is good that you are trying to address this issue, but I am unsure if it is the right approach. It would surely help if you could get input from someone familiar with the US legal system. My immediate thought regarding 'charged' is that it is a state a person is in, typically until the question of guilt has been answered by the court, or until the charges have been dropped (or perhaps some other event that I am unaware of). By that I mean that in my understanding one cannot at the same time be charged and convicted as charged, and it sounds like the Wikipedia categories could be cleaned up accordingly. But I am really not the right person to ask. Lklundin (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I could change the cat to "People charged but presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917" though it seems rather long. It would also mean we'd probably have to create further categories for people acquitted, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This proposed solution sounds redundant to me, 'charged' really should imply 'presumably innocent'. Lklundin (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I will investigate further, and will consult an expert I know, and then get back to you. It may be that we can change the cat from "Persons presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917" to something like "People charged but not guilty under the Espionage Act of 1917". The only potential problem with that is use of negative terminology in the category name, but I will investigate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, good luck. Lklundin (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My expert friend recommends getting rid of the "Persons presumably innocent..." category and also the "Persons charged...." category, leaving only the "Persons convicted...." category. And we could create a "Persons acquitted category...." But Snowden would not belong in either category, because he's been neither convicted nor acquitted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we're all set now, per Category:Persons_charged_under_the_Espionage_Act_of_1917. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a real improvement. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which sources I orphaned? I double-checked and verified that my edit only removed two redundant sources while all the others remained the same, I only changed their places. Did you probably mean this edit by the bot (not me) [1]? It does seem it made a few errors. EkoGraf (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I did indeed attribute the errors of the bot to you. I apologize and will try to be more careful (and hope that someone will take care of the erroneous bot). All the best, Lklundin (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Its no problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay IMDB never goes as a ref only as a EL-and its odd but it is considered unsourced when there are no refs but only el's. Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Having read the WP:USERG guidance, I must say it is hard to judge what content on IMDB is generated by editorial staff rather than random users.

So I will make sure not to quote IMDB for anything even mildly controversial. Since a family relation involving two BLP's qualifies as that, I have provided a reliable source (although not in English), and reinstated your el-edit.

Thanks and all the best, Lklundin (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lklundin, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question in this edit sumarry [2], it is actually the legend of Prometheus, retold in a hip-hop context. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That's pretty creative (and on reflection also a handy source of inspiration without copyright issues)... All the best, Lklundin (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have recently tried to edit the page on, "The Black of Communism" page. My goal was to make the lacking section on Criticisms more complete. I decided to talk about the conversation between the Maoist International Movement, Mark Kramer (the editor of the book) and The Harvard University Press (the publishers of the book). I had added the sources to the argument. One was from an archive of the old Maoist International Movement's website. The source contained E-Mails from between all parties, and included the letter from Mark Kramer in which he allegedly agreed with the MIM. I find that these sources provide a great insight into the criticisms against the book.

I am also confused about your claims that my passage wasn't "neutral". The general idea of Wikipedia is to foster new ideas and new perspectives of events, and I find that my passage brought up necessary criticisms in an area where it is lacking. The claim that I am biased seems like it might be coming from biased opinions itself. In my latest revision of the passage (as of 4:56 P.M. on June 6th, 2015) I attempted to compromise and find a middle ground. I specifically called the called the letters "alleged' and attempted to make the reader think for themselves. I will admit that I could have done a better job at doing it, but the passage that you replaced it with provides little to no context on the basis of the MIM's claims. I feel that presented their claims helps the reader decide for themselves, and for somebody who is truly looking into criticisms of "The Black Book Of Communism". I would like to wrap my discontent with your "neutrality" claims up by saying that although you can find an abundance of criticisms against communism, criticisms against capitalism and their claims against communism are not represented well on this site. It seems as though there is not a lot of this supposed "neutrality" on this site.

I will continue fighting for a more accurate representation of the Maoist International Movements criticisms against "The Black Book of Communism", and will not stop until it is given one. Feel free to contact me and continue the discussion.

Sincerely, Peachman2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachman2000 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

for det første så er en helt igennem neutraul meddelse omkring personen SØREN KAM at han ,ikke er retsforfulgt i Danmark aldeles neutral .mvh robotticat

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotticat (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lklundin. Many thanks for your careful edits on Winton's parents' and his own marriage. Just wondering if the "engineer Robert Charles Winton as his best man" may have been his brother. We don't seem to know if he had any siblings, although the article currently says he was "a son" not "the son". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a quick googling indicates that his best man was indeed his brother (as is often the case). I have only experience with (and access to) Scandinavian genealogical records, so I have no RS for this. Please beware that the information from web-pages of hobby genealogists is not RS and should always be validated with a RS. PS. In many cases a person's parents are listed with the father first. Is there a particular reason why this is different here? Lklundin (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No reason I am aware of. Some editors have problems with using findmypast.com search results on their own, let alone "web-pages of hobby genealogists". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Can anybody provide me with some links or thoroughly explain to me how to do an article assessment and an article peer review. I'm kind interested in helping contribute to Wikipedia by assessing and reviewing articles William239 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@William239: On your talk page you can read the links under Policies and Guidelines. After that you can go to any article that interests you and start reviewing, and make changes supported by the policies and guidelines. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tesla Model S, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuse. 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) 09:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Lklundin,

I guess this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_20#Category:Commons_category_template_with_no_category_set might interest. I suppose your input on this topiv could be valuable.--Robby (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a note to the Cruise Control talk page about why I want to delete the advantages/disadvantges section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylommykins (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would I doxx a family member of one of my close friends? I have no desire to do that. PS, calm down Edith is a movie quote I heard.

Glorry Man United! Eric Ramus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lklundin, you said here that transltation is needed. Where can we add this? - Anonymous --95.9.33.129 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, non-English sources are not optimal. As a start, someone proficient in Turkish and English could improve each Turkish source citation by adding the field 'trans_title' with the translation of the Turkish title into English. Lklundin (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, I didnt know that field. - Anonymous --95.9.33.129 (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I believe that you did some editing on Steam (software) last year. There is an issue being discussed at this link: [3]. It is proving hard to find any common ground, and I wonder if you might look at the discussion and question and make any comment?

Regards

Springnuts (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viking Link, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Grid. 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) 10:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DrFleischman. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Cminard. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: While I appreciate your concern for Wikiquette, I suspect that you did not check the user's editing history (see Cminard (talk · contribs · count)). We are, all three of us on this talk page, experienced enough to know that:
A) We're all fallible and, as such, an inapplicable template warning can end up being used as a matter of bad judgement rather than malice (as you've acknowledged yourself);
B) Interactions between users should be judged in context.

The user you are defending may be inexperienced, but their track record suggests that there is a fundamental problem with their lack of interaction with other editors (i.e., failure to discuss content in any shape or form on article talk pages per WP:BRD), along with the use of misleading edit summaries, the removal of sourced content, and the introduction of unsourced content. These elements, in tandem with the fact that the user has now ventured into Eastern European ARB sanctioned articles and has begun to edit war content, should suggest that your reprimands of other editors are disproportionate in light of Cminard's editing practices. My suggestion would be that, if you feel compelled to intervene and reprimand, you should make certain that such reprimands are not one sided. Kind regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I do not care about Cminard's editing behavior or history. What I was concerned with was the fact that Lklundin accused Cminard of vandalism when in fact it was quite clear she did not engage in vandalism. When I pointed this out, Lklundin did not acknowledge his or her error but instead doubled down with an unduly aggressive admonishment of Cminard. Now Cminard may be a very weak editor, perhaps incompetent for all I know, but I still feel Lklundin's follow-up response was completely disproportionate. I don't think it was malicious but it was certainly unproductive and set a very poor example for others who combat vandalism. I guess what I'm trying to say is that two wrongs don't make a right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Let me offer you my perspective:

1) Vandalism can come in the form of changing a single character, per Wikipedia:Vandalism, such as the change that caused me to place the warning.

2) The warning I placed was a caution (level 2), because a few days before a previous warning had been made, with no acknowledgement from the editor.

3) The warning I placed not only refers to the specific, reverted edit, but uses plural to refer to "unconstructive edits" and "your edits", which together with the first warning cautions that there is a general problem with the editors's contributions.

4) Since you question my assessment that the reverted edit was vandalism, I would like to quote Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Not all that appears to be vandalism is in bad faith, and a warning can politely advise and correct users unaware of the nature of their actions". So per this statement, apparent vandalism is sufficient cause for a warning.

5) Further, per Wikipedia:Vandalism the purpose of the warning is among others to "seek the user's compliance". By expressing indifference (in capitals no less), the user clearly demonstrates that the warning had no effect.

6) As such I explained why the warning was placed and using the phrase "I hope you will take a moment to think about this", I see no aggressive language, at least from my side.

7) You are right that certain unconstructive editing is borderline with respect to being vandalism. In this case the continued contributions from the editor gives me no reason to reconsider my assessment.

Your interest in this discussion tells me that you are or should be aware of the user's pattern of unconstructive editing. So I would be pleased to read your recommendations of what actions should be taken to avoid further unconstructive editing from this user and maybe even turn the user into a productive one.

Since you may not agree with me, I will add that we cannot discuss this forever (especially since I have nothing to add), so you are welcome to have the last word. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please take this with a grain of salt. If I had encountered Cmindard's edit myself, I would have simply reverted it without a user warning. If I was inclined to put something on her user talk, my aim would have been to educate rather than to punish. I wouldn't have used a vandalism warning, which was unlikely to yield a productive response in this particular situation. (Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I could have predicted a negative response.) Instead, I would have posted something friendly explaining why I reverted, e.g. that the word "government" shouldn't be capitalized because it's not a proper noun, and please review your edits before committing them careful to avoid typos like "Fovernment." Since you wrote you were more concerned about "Fovernment" than about the capitalization, {{uw-preview}} might have been a decent choice of template. Now, if your concern wasn't so much about that particular edit but instead about a pattern of editing, as Iryna expressed, then you really ought to have explained that. As long as we're all here to build an encyclopedia, the primary goal of user talk is to make us into stronger editors, not to kick out the weaker ones. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There is really no need for this sort of snark. I look forward to working productively with you in the future. I mean that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: You seem to think that I was being sarcastic. But I just saw you were improving on a new and very questionable article, that could just as well have been proposed for deletion, so I thought I would help without getting directly mixed up in your work, by pointing to some background information. FYI, I did a bit of work on the photo used the article, on Commons where you do not seem active. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ooooops, I had indeed misunderstood, sorry. Ah the joys of text communication. And thanks for your help. Do you think the article should be deleted, and if so, based on notability, neutrality/WP:TNT, or what? I'm not 100% certain the article is salvageable myself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your message and don't worry. I am not a native English speaker so maybe my choice of words is sometimes a bit unusual. Good question regarding this article, which did not start out very well. I think your assessment based on the media's reporting is OK, or certainly not for me to question. I fully support your decision to remove the mention of this new article from the Edward Snowden article. So let's just see how it all evolves. Maybe someone else will have something to say. I think I will keep an eye on the article, an article about a US citizen apparently in Russia due to US persecution has the potential to become contentious. Lklundin (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The reporting in both the U.S. and in Russia seems sloppy and biased which makes putting a decent article together particularly challenging. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Although I am unaware of a policy that covers a case of seemingly sloppy and biased reporting, I think it can be used to form an argument in favour of notability. The rationale would be that if something is being reported, but with conflicting and biased views, then that it in itself adds some notability to the topic, since it is an indication that there is something more to the topic. I guess. Lklundin (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lklundin, thank you for your welcome message. I am curious of the year count of your Wikipedian history on your page. How do you find out the account creation time for a user account please? —冷雾 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You can login to your account, then click on 'Preferences' on the top of the page. From there you can click 'View global account info', that will show you a summary of your contributions to different languages, along with the account creation time. I hope that helps. Lklundin (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EPR (nuclear reactor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MW. 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) 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding content deletion on the page Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution, see here. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Lancastle (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fosen Vind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sami. 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) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)