User:Boeing720/Archive 4

Spanish Civil War article

Thanks for the thanks on the article edit. The Spanish Civil War happens to be on my watch list because I am making up for a youth misspent on a science curriculum completely lacking liberal arts by catching up on a few American authors, Hemingway in this case. My plan is to add a bit to the H. autobiography on his time in Spain. If only my iPad threw typos as interesting as "at the Spanish thrown." — Neonorange (Phil) 04:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for the misspelling of "throne". Especially as it became a verb (throw - threw - thrown). I can just add that I don't think I ever have spelled that word ever before. I'm really glad you corrected this, for me very embarrassing error. Thanks again. About Hemingway, can I only say that I know he was a really great author, but I haven't read any of his novels (so far). But especially during cold winter periods, do I love to read novels. I have now put Hemingway "on my list". Boeing720 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Torkild Strandberg. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

1. (the latter is already created without sources,done by himself or on order by someone else)
2. But the serious contribution IS SOURCED. Further down. His destructions of 24 Danish parishes, Vilhelm Moberg - and G-A2 himself, a King's Letter as sources. Stop this  ! Boeing720 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Which of those two sources states that "[Gustavus] was the only Swedish King who ever has made a major contribute to European continental history"? General Ization ^Talk 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Now I just used 20 minutes explaining, and then you move the text. And my answer went up in smoke. If you had not disturbed me, would the Gustavus article statement either A. already exist (checked by me), as it's a primary school grade 5 issue, can I not rule that out. Or B. I would have added at the very least an encyclopedic source. Besides the lead also contain a lot of glorification, without sources there. Do they exist further down ?

I was looking for English sources, but as I said, the Swedish Empire began with GA II's intervention in the Thirty Year War, Sweden got large areas in northern Germany and Poland (as of current maps) and continued to grow until 1660. But after Charles XII was much of it lost. Peace was restored in 1720. In 1809 did Russia invade Finland, and Sweden was no longer any kind of Empire. Now I have to go to bed, but I will return tomorrow. Boeing720 (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. Unless and until you can cite a reliable source that states that "[Gustavus] was the only Swedish King who ever has made a major contribute to European continental history", do not add this or similar statements to the article, whether or not this is your personal opinion. See Original research and Verifiability. General Ization ^Talk 02:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said - if it isn't there already (outside the lead) - I could add a Swedish enclopedic source RIGHT NOW. But I would prefer to find an English source, if it isn't there already. I never came that far as you have in various ways interrupted me. Boeing720 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And as I said: please do not add the statement unless and until you can cite a source that supports (or show that an existing citation supports) it, per the policies I linked to above. General Ization ^Talk 03:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem is that it's so well-known that one has to go really down to lowest levels. In English [1] - "Gustav II Adolf or Gustavus Adolphus, Sweden's greatest warrior-king, best known for his pivotal role in the Thirty Years' War." And only Charles X and Charles XII have fought wars at the continent. The first one, against Poland in 1657. A failed war, but a successful way back home. In Denmark. Or more precisely at Zealand. And the faith of former Eastern Denmark, isn't of major influence at the continent. The second began a hopeless war in Russia, and then stayed many years in Turkey, and rode home incognito. It's doubtlessly so, that only Gustav II Adolf have had a major contribution to continental history. Boeing720 (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've missed the point. Neither saying that someone played "a pivotal role" in a war nor saying that "only two others fought wars on the continent" is the same thing as saying that the former is "the only Swedish King who ever has made a major contribution to European continental history". A + B ≠ C. The latter statement is an assertion completely unsupported by the first two alone, and if unsourced it cannot be made here. General Ization ^Talk 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, regarding "it's a primary school grade 5 issue": a) do you continue to believe everything you were told in grade 5, for no other reason than you were told it then? and b) most of the world doesn't learn the biographies of Swedish kings in grade 5, nor at any grade level. That's why they're turning to an encyclopedia, and any claims in the article on Gustavus should be just as verifiable as any other biographical article here -- moreso if the claims are exceptional, as this one certainly is. See also WP:BURDEN. General Ization ^Talk 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Now, if what you are trying to say is "More than any other Swedish king, Gustavus played a pivotal role in wars that shaped European continental history", that would probably be a defensible statement based on existing sources and those you mentioned. Is that what you're trying to say? Note the differences between the two statements. General Ization ^Talk 13:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

What is this ? Have I said any other Swedish King than Gustav II Adolf, has had any kind of significant role in continental European History ? It's the contrary - although two other Kings in some minor extent have fought wars at the European continent (only one, Karl X Gustav, if Russia and Turkey is excluded. And his war in Poland was brief and without result - at the continent, Denmark is a different matter). And none of these Kings are anywhere close to having had a profound significance on continental history. (=Scandinavia excluded) G2A contributed in highest possible degree in order to save the Reformation against the Catholic League. Regardless of one's own religious beliefs, a certain fact. Without G2A's intervention could possibly entire Germany & Netherlands and other countries became turned back to Catholicism. But there's no point discussing these issues, as you appear to totally unaware of European history. If you just hadn't disturbed me, moved messages around etc, would the article be improved including sources by yesterday. Quote from German Wiki,[2], top of the lead "war von 1611 bis 1632 König von Schweden und eine der wichtigsten Figuren der schwedischen Geschichte und des Dreißigjährigen Krieges." This is a very common German understanding of G2A - and no other Swedish King comes close from this, from a continental perspective. Do you still mean I'm far away from (a well referenced) truth ? I will return with proper sources. Boeing720 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. I am not saying you're wrong. My personal knowledge of European history is immaterial, as is yours, and as is the "very common German understanding of G2A" (which translates as: "[G2A] was King of Sweden from 1611 to 1632 and one of the most important figures of Swedish history and the Thirty Years' War" – which doesn't directly support the claim that G2A was the only Swedish king to contribute to European continental history, and in fact says nothing about anyone else's contribution to European history). I'm saying you must cite reliable sources that clearly support the statements to make them here (or identify the already-cited RS that already do so). As requested, please read WP:BURDEN, WP:OR and WP:V. They are very clear about this. General Ization ^Talk 14:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have most certainly heard you ! And I'm very aware of WP:RELIABLE etc. But in absurdum ? "Paris is the capital of France" or "The French revolution began in 1789" - does such statements require reliable sources ? Or are they well known enough ? I'm talking about where do we set the limits ? Perhaps I made a misjudgement of how well-known my contribution was, but anyways, have I said I will return WHEN I have found proper sources. Boeing720 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. General Ization ^Talk 14:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as the sky itself is transparent and actually lacks colours, but (through atmospheric phenomenon) may appear to be bright blue in sunshine. But also grey, dark-grey and dark-blue and black and red to amber as well as yellow... Meaning - that particular example is far from optimal. But OK, I see your point. But still, we have had a guidelines about well-known matters earlier. And for instance plots of fiction literature as well as of any film is largely free to interpret as one likes. (which I have questioned myself, by the way) Etc. Boeing720 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I was also concerned about this edit to Torkild Strandberg which User:General Ization reverted. It looks like a op-ed letter written to the local newspaper more than an encyclopedia article. Those kind of claims and characterizations clearly need a source and most likely in-text attribution. I also provided some friendly pointers about wording/grammar on the article talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. First - Torkild Strandberg is holding a kind of key-position in my home town. He had a great success in the local election in 2006. This was achieved by writing non-personal letters to what he thought may be potential supporters and thereby voters. However as my old parents received letters, whose messages impaired to the ones I received, did I ask him (over the phone) "Are you trying to fool elderly people ?". He then replied - "no, the different letters are related to the postal ZIP-codes." And IF this man isn't UNDUE was that picture I uploaded, of encyclopedic value. A describing of how he works. The letters in question (at that picture) are written by herr Strandberg to voters. Not to all, but through an unknown selection. And he has continued with these letter writings at least once every year. (And more during election years.) I can only estimate their number, but I guess 2000 letters to areas (ZIP-code areas, if he told me the truth) were the local population might like his ideas and perspectives. And perhaps an equal quantity to areas where he sooner want's to maintain an already good position. If the picture isn't deleted, would this be very clear for ALL (verifiable) who just translate a few lines. The letters of that picture are political propaganda.

I fail to see the connection. That was a Commons related matter.

If it was here, lately, have that matter been solved. Point is that article has been used by Strandberg himself (or by close associates)- as well at Swedish Wiki. I don't recall the guideline's name, but if following our guidelines, can someone NOT either wright an article of him/herself or give orders to others to do so. It that article had been at the very least a 10 line stub - and used reliable sources, then I hadn't added any material to that article. I have, by the way, (without any sympathies for Trump) noted that the Hillary Clinton article hardly can be seen as NPOV. All attempts to add new stuff always fail, even with extremely reliable sources. And of 7-8 pictures is she smiling at all of them. I propose we delete Torkild Strandberg, due to WP:UNDUE. And that someone makes an effort with our article Hillary Clinton (in order to give it NPOV balance, also when it comes to the pictures) Boeing720 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The G2A article. I have now found two statements in the lead, which are not sourced further down (or in the lead). I put at both. Boeing720 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

An evaluation of how a politician works, with phrases such as "impression of a dying town" and "very alarming current situation", needs citation. Those are not facts. Even with a citation such claims would not be factual and would most likely need attribution. That something is alarming to the population might be considered a fact (with citation) but that it is simply alarming needs attribution to who thinks it is so. Wikipedia does not report that things are bad. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Impression of a dying town" have been used in a local paper. (my own formulation would be "...dying AS a town" or "what has been a town ever since 1413 or 1405, full of people who have been proud over their town, now more and more is turning in the direction of becoming a of a suburb of nothing". Anyways, have I discussed this already with user General Ization - including that I have admitted to have made an error in that particular article.

Only since you appear wanting to discuss it even all over again - have I explained this was done in an article which totally lacks sources already. And it's WP:UNDUE - there is nothing of encyclopedic value. No sources. Nothing. We don't have articles of (not even a mayor, or even the Swedish counterpart to that position, which would be "kommunalråd", by the way) of all local politicians in the world. He has been present in the Swedish Parliament like one day, then went back at once. Especially the Swedish counterpart of this article has been misused by both sides. And first by himself or at his behalf.

If possible, DIYeditor -

1. Do you disagree or agree to my at two statement of the lead in the Gustavus II Adolphus or Gustav II Adolf, king of Sweden 1611-32 ?
2. Why are sources not required for plots (within the scopes of novels as well as motion pictures) ?
3. Have you any specific guideline to recommend (like General Ization did, but preferably not the same ones)
4. Have you read WP:UNDUE ? (And is or isn't the Strandberg article UNDUE, in your opinion ?)

Any input to any/some/all these questions would be helpful. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• The material you added on Torkild Strandberg is an unsourced personal opinion that does not belong in the article since it violates WP:NPOV. So do not add it again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 06:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Why make a comment, to which I already have responded and explained twice ? Including the fact that I agree to that criticism. But the article is clearly UNDUE, according to WP:UNDUE. Boeing720 (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on that comment I assume that you by "undue" mean "not notable" (which isn't what "undue" means in English), but per WP:POLITICIAN all present and former members of a national legislature, including Sveriges Riksdag, are assumed to be notable enough to have an article. I have no idea who this Torkild Strandberg is but I have added sources for him being charman of the municipal council and a former member of the Riksdag, and I'm sure that there, if needed, is plenty of in-depth coverage of him to be found in other reliable third party sources. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's based on the fact that there isn't anything of encyclopedic value in the article. It's not even a stub, UNDUE and NOT NOTABLE. We are not supposed to have that short articles. And it lacked sources until you added them. Perhaps you can find out some more, based on reliable sources ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is a stub, as it clearly indicates, and the subject's notability is no longer in question, per the guidance that Thomas W. pointed out to you. And as he also pointed out, an article cannot be WP:UNDUE. You seem to have misunderstood what undue means in that context. General Ization ^Talk 01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you dislike Strandberg. That is precisely why you should leave that article alone and stop complaining about its existence. You do not possess a neutral point of view concerning the subject, and your obvious lack of it disqualifies you from editing that particular article. General Ization ^Talk 01:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But I havn't touched it. It was completely without sources also, until very recently. And if you read my last reply to Thomas W, do I encourage him (who added the sources), to see if he can find out something more. I've seen longer articles be removed - of very similar type. Boeing720 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

At which point I direct you to review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which applies both to the creation and deletion of articles. And I acknowledge that you haven't edited it since I reverted your contribution to it several days ago. You just seem to be on a mission to have the article removed, and/or to share your unsourced opinions of the subject, and to be ignoring the explanations you have received for why it is unlikely to be removed or your opinions included. General Ization ^Talk 02:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's unfair! To encourage another user to improve something he already has began on, is that wrong ?? And as WP:N (people) states:

"For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." - do I think it would be just fine, if Thomas W could find out some more, in order to qualify him also by this guideline. Further - I have NOT wanted to discuss that article any further, and have at least twice apologized. I have been forced to give replies, it's as simple as that. Boeing720 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Accepted and the matter considered closed, at least by me. General Ization ^Talk 03:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced opinions/commentary

• "It cannot entirely be ruled out, that Oliver Stone's work have prevented a future Nuclear Holocaust by making "Russia-fobics" more relaxed about Putin and Russia."
• "Stone is very polite and it seems like Putin enjoys talking with him."

Those are not neutral, not factual, and not sourced. I'm really sorry to have to raise this issue again but it was just brought up above. In the edit summary of the second material you claim you cannot tell the difference between NPOV and not. What would help in this? If something is an opinion rather than a fact it definitely needs a source, and probably attribution to that source ("According to so-and-so..."). —DIYeditor (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720, we have discussed this issue before, very recently (as shown above). Also (and unrelated to your failure to source your contributions), it does seem that your level of skill with the English language is an issue here. "Oliver Stone's work have" is incorrect English grammar (singular noun, plural verb) and I must assume you meant ""Russia-phobics" (as in phobia). There is no such English word as "fobic". General Ization ^Talk 23:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry for the spelling error. And that part may sound as my own thoughts. Nevertheless did I "get it" from a debate at "Deadline" , Danish DR2. But I have to agree also in general, about that part. We're obliged to have a global perspective. And frankly have I no idea what has been said in other countries. I take that criticism to hart. Boeing720 (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I refer to WP:BOLD. It was not my opinion, it has been discussed in various medias. And this was days ago. It was removed days ago too. And accepted by me.

About the Summary I never wrote this "Stone is very polite and it seems like Putin enjoys talking with him.". I didn't use "VERY polite" - certainly not, further is it taken out of its context and not exact. I gave examples of HOW Stone (many times) before a question said things like "I'm expected to ask this question " - isn't that politeness. I've read Stone has made a dozen of interviews 2015-17, which becomes very obvious if watching the interviews. Use the talk-page. Lastly, a summary is just the same as a plot, in which our guidelines states "the film/novel counts as primary source." (It states nothing about secondary sources). I have personally brought that matter up at the Village Pump. And elsewhere. A four hour interview with one and a half line of summary, is that good ? If you think my interpretation for the summary part is wrong, then just change it. The source is obviously the interviews, which I have recorded. Boeing720 (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And to DIYeditor - This correction is no correction "He says that the job was what he had hoped for." Which job ? - that job ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC) I've opened "Summary & NPOV" at the talk-page. Boeing720 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to decipher your intended meaning due to poor word choice, grammar and misunderstanding of idioms. You said:

"But he admits to the fact that, that job was what he had hoped for."

That is not how you would say that he had hoped to get that job. Rather, that says that the job was what he expected it to be like - "was what he had hoped for." You are reluctant to admit any problems with English and refuse to learn things like not reversing verb order in the second clause of sentences (or when you've started a sentence with a conjunction), changing it into how a question would be phrased in English. You claim an advanced knowledge of English but it is plain that it is not so. This edit is typical of the kind of corrections that are required to essentially every major edit you make. It was not easy to figure out what you meant by multiple people sharing the same grave! Please at least consider learning from the corrections rather than taking exception to them or getting frustrated that it was impossible to decipher your intended meaning. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OK I can see the was/were etc. In cases when one becomes several, like "person A was" - but then ops the source states "Person A" and "Person B" was" instead of "were". (not a defense but an explanation.) Regarding Putin's work, must I object that the main issue is that he admitted to wanting to work for the KGB. I didn't begin that sentence myself. My self rate in English is 3 not 4 (or if it's 5). Unlike many other non-English-native contributors (I guess, at least), have I've done several self-tests (like vocabulary, grammar, synonyms, understand reading etc) at the web which all indicates that I could begin study the English language at an academical level, at a British university. Which is one level higher (if I had studied at an academical level, that is) I haven't received any other complaints regarding my English. Not after I (after a month or so) realized that spelling is important also at talk-pages. That was almost six years ago now. I think you exaggerate and the HC Andersen's grave isn't typical. When I must add a contribution inside an already existing text, is the formatting not supposed to be broken. Such edits are perhaps a bit more likely to contain minor grammatical errors. (with "minor" don't I mean was/were, that's a "severe" error in my book) Which is correct spelling, by the way "color" or "colour" Boeing720 (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"Regarding Putin's work, must I object..." is the start of a question not a statement. It should be "I must object". I don't know why you won't deal with this persistent word order problem no matter how often corrected. And yes, it is a significant issue that you misuse the idiom in "was what he had hoped for" to mean "was the one he had hoped for" because a native English reader is going to take those to mean quite different things. If it were just an isolated case we could call it minor I suppose but it permeates your edits. I think the HCA text is very typical of what I have seen from you. This has absolutely nothing to do with British vs. American usage. I am flabbergasted but I suppose at this point I should not be surprised to see you trying to hide behind that again. I appreciate the difficulty of contributing in a foreign language but cannot accept that the HCA problems were "minor". They make it very difficult to understand. The most frustrating part is that pointing out a grammatical issue to you once, twice, thrice, and on and on does not seem to sink in. It goes right past and you continue making the same mistake and arguing about anything but that issue. You say no one else has pointed out the problem but I have seen two other editors explicitly complain about your English. General Ization did above and Johnuniq did at Talk:C (programming language). Other people are being polite, not paying attention, don't care enough, or are avoiding the potential frustration at trying to help someone who refuses to take corrections. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"seek and you will find". You began with POV & OR accusations - and when that didn't work (very good), you change the subject. And so do I. And I don't find Wikipedia to be a gentle environment full of politeness. And pardon my language, but you have just "shit in the blue cupboard" - What about your OWN GRAMMAR ??? Quote from your "reply" above - "If it were just an isolated case..." The pronoun "It" is third person singular !, "It was". Further - who are you ? Obviously very experienced on some guidelines, but you have just been here for less than a year. That impairs. Hence I put it to you, that you are a troll of some kind, unless you can explain yourself! Boeing720 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720, as a non-native English speaker, if you're going to make comments about English grammar, I very much suggest you need to make sure you know what you're talking about. In this case you are completely wrong. The statement "If it were just an isolated case..." is what is called an unreal conditional, in other words it is a hypothetical. In this case the correct form of the verb to be is always 'were' even if the subject of the clause is the third person singular (he, she, it). - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720, accusing another editor who has given you constructive criticism, even if you disagree with it, of being a "a troll" is a violation of our policy here requiring that editors be civil to each other and assume good faith. Would you like to retract that accusation? General Ization ^Talk 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, you have more than once in my brief association with you demanded of other editors "Who are you?" The answer is that they are other volunteer editors, of (at least) equal standing to you, and since Wikipedia is driven by collaboration and consensus, you are expected to show them respect, again whether or not you agree with them. Is that clear? General Ization ^Talk 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! You're correct, always assume good faith. Boeing720 (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me also caution you that it is a mistake for you to assume that you can gauge the expertise or experience of an editor solely by looking at the edit count or start date associated with their current username. Editors are free to change usernames at any time, and/or to edit constructively using multiple accounts, and many do, especially those of long standing here. So you should refrain from making any sort of assumption of "superiority" based on other editors' start dates or edit statistics. General Ization ^Talk 00:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind warning, naturally are you correct also in this case. I feel like I would like to comment this a bit further, but I renounce. Boeing720 (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"If it were" - Subjunctive mood - English subjunctive#Use of the past subjunctive. I may be new (although I am not entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia) but I can read the policies/guidelines and their examples and understand the difference between facts and opinions (even if there is some grey area). That you think it is an NPOV fact that any editor can plainly observe that Putin is avoiding a question in an interview is genuinely concerning. Does he say, "I'm avoiding that question"? No, you've drawn a conclusion from a primary source which is clearly not allowed by WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. The conclusion that Putin did change the topic and that doing so is a way to avoid a question is not something a Wikipedia editor can decide. It requires a secondary source for that analysis. What's hard to understand about that? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

.

. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subjunctive mood examples (taken from the article)

• not subjunctive - If he was in class yesterday, he learned it.
• subjunctive - If he were in class today, he would be learning it.
• your full sentence was - If it were just an isolated case we could call it minor I suppose but it permeates your edits.
• essential part (subjunctive aspect) - If it were just an isolated case we could call it minor I suppose...

There's no "wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, obligation, or action that have not yet occurred" in your case. With a comma after after the words "case" and "suppose", possibly. But as strict as you are, is it still not correct. Not just due to (so to speak) a "normal" absence of commas, if writing in subjunctive mood, becomes such errors larger, since they (= the absence of commas) confuse the readers in a larger degree than such forgotten commas do, in other cases.

If not answering a question, but instead change the subject, is the same as avoiding the question. If you interpret that differently. Then you personally interpret the contribution differently from what's normal. Put it to ANI, if you like. Because I simply cannot agree to that there is any OR in that contribution. Or in other words don't I believe there really is a difference between

• "He didn't answer Stone's question, changed subject, and said instead..."

and

• "He avoided that question and instead replied..."

Do you really mean that a person actually needs to state "I'm avoiding that question", in order to make a such obvious observation ? That's like arguing about the Pope's beard or dispute the beard's beard.

If (please note "if") your role here is to be a teacher, ask yourself this "Am I a good teacher ?".

From an entirely argumentative perspective, can't you first say "This have I taught you, why don't you listen ?" - and then just keep on referring to an older contribution. Made before "the lesson", so to speak. Boeing720 (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This diff shows an edit at The Putin Interviews by Boeing720. The edit changed:

Stone asks, "What about if an FSB employee had done something similar?", and Putin replies "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty."

to

As Stone then asks, "What about if an FSB employee had done something similar?", does Putin avoid the specific question, with the reply "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty."

That kind of loaded (and broken) writing is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Everything I have seen suggests it would be a waste of time trying to explain the point further so all that can be done for now is to prepare the evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have reported myself to AN/I, so we will see. I hope. (However ".., Putin avoids that specific question, .." would have been better. ) Boeing720 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No one else is mentioned by alias. But please add your thoughts at [3].

AN/I

I must inform myself, that I have taken "the avoided question"-issue to AN/I. No one else is referred to by their alias. Sorry for the external link [4] Boeing720 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oresund Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coast Line (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) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC) But the link goes to Coast Line (Denmark) "Coast Line (Denmark)" (Kystbanen, Denmark), and did so after my contribution. ???? Boeing720 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ache (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) 10:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Continued verb order problem

You keep phrasing things as questions. "Between approximately 1870 and 1980 were large areas planted with this tree" - it should be large areas were not "were large areas". "Where this vegetation zone ends, are no trees growing at all" - no trees are growing not "are no trees growing". If you honestly don't believe me and can't tell that this is how things are ordered and phrased in English (look for yourself at the rest of Wikipedia), why haven't you checked with a grammar book? The way you order, as I have said many times, while it may be correct in Swedish (?), is how you phrase a question not a statement in English. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please Boeing, you have had this issues pointed out before, more than once, so please listen to what you are being told. It is not a trivial thing if you continue to make a hash of the language. All it does is make more work for others who have to come along and clean up after you. If you're not prepared to learn and use proper, intelligible English grammar then please desist from editing the English Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne:Please see [5] sorry for the late reply and thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

POV in the article Swedish Wikipedia

I have started a discussion about if you are writing pov or have coi here. I have asked other users not from Sweden to look into it, so it will be looked at by neutral eyes. Adville (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop pov pushing in svwp article. You have clearly showed you dislike Swedish Wikipedia and therefor it is no Good you proceed writing there with your non neutral edits. Adville (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have given you a fair chance to explain. But obviously you are not able to come up with any kind of explanation to why we should not present NPOV certainties regarding Article Depth.Boeing720 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Three Other non Swedish contributors agree with me. I have explains. Cant hell if you dont understand or just wants to pov push. Adville (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

To which non Swedish contributors do you refer ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced opinions/advice/commentary and continued grammar mistake

This edit introduces unsourced opinions and movie-watching advice. Even if it were sourced, advice on which version or parts of a movie to watch is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. At any rate, it must be clear that opinions on qualities of a movie require a source. Among other grammatical errors, there are two instances of your verb misplacement - "might the latter one still be a better choice" = "the latter one might still be a better choice". Thanks for your attention to this. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Boeing720 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Movie watching advice", well I suppose you are correct there as well. If it were not for the film's extreme length and dialogue quality , I wouldn't have made that comment. Also, through not so few discussions about this film, I have heard far too many comments like "oh that film with all those Christmas celebrations... etc". Always nothing but that. But as Matthew Macfadyen (also known from Spooks) states, an exceptional or extraordinary film. (found in the artcle) At the same time, it's really hard to "come through" its first 90 minutes or so. Every time I have heard any comments about this film, they have been just about "that Christmas party, boring" etc. So I would prefer "reader guide" rather than "watching advice". This was an explanation , not anything else. I know our rules and guidelines. I accept your deletion, naturally. Boeing720 (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Demitz

Hi I noticed that you are suggesting that as I initiated the User:SergeWoodzing saga that it is a personal campaign. It is nothing of the sort. As I explained I came across this editor by chance and when i started looking into his editing he was very clearly a COI editor. He refused to reply to my questions about the requirement to disclose his COI and this is what kicked this off. He has been adding dozens of photos articles and references that all link back to Demitz and his amateur cabaret and friends and relations. This is a problem on Wikipedia and should not happen. He has brought this on himself by refusing to reply and reverting back to his COI edits. He has been doing this on various wikiprojects over a long period. I do not wish to pollute the AFD with this but I wanted to set the record straight. I would suggest that you refrain from accusing people of bad faith without proof. I cannot speak for the other editors that have !voted delete. I have nominated a couple of other pages that are linked to "Serge" and some of the editors that !voted delete for Demitz have !voted keep for these pages basing their arguments on notability. You have stated that you think this person is notable they have stated otherwise, I would suggest that you leave it at that rather then continually kicking the ants nest. We have all wasted an enormous amount of time that could have been saved if the COI issue had been admitted in the first place and his edits been cleaned up in a normal fashion. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. However and first - I'dont believe you to be among the ones I referred to. (Not all delete-voters, but just those who otherwise contribute at the Swedish Wiki and not here). There has indeed been a personal conflict there, at Swedish Wiki. I can certainly agree with you that Serge Woodzing has made COI and other mistakes and errors. I guess he is some kind of fan of Demitz. I just think we ought to have some article on Demitz. (and Woodzing is one thing, but Demitz another) And Bishonen made a decent effort there, but if necessary it can be cut even further. I would prefer a further cutting - even down to an absolute minimum, if necessary, but keep the article. I gave a few examples. I'm truly sorry, if I was unclear and if you felt my comment meant for you. Boeing720 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The "conflict" you are talking about has been going on for years... but it was because of COI on svwp too, and we reacted. It was clear for us. Here it is exsctly the same problems and therefor it is not strange we vote like on svwp. Sw tries to say we are haunting him but that is because he is som much COI that we have to do something. This article lacks good sources saying why he would have an den article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adville (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I said Woodzing is one thing, Demitz another. Boeing720 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I Said SW is one thing trying to say everyone are against him. Demitz another not proven to pass (and therefor SW is angry with svwp... why you are I do not know but you are accusing all of us to be ganging against him) Adville (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Only those who recognized themselves , no others. I was clear on that. Boeing720 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

3RR violation at Swedish Wikipedia

Your recent editing history at Swedish Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
I refrained from sending this warning yesterday when it was only at 3 reverts within 24 hours because I didn't want to antagonize you, but subsequently you have made another for a total of 4 between 22:14, 18 October and 15:22, 19 October. That violates the 3RR. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Now you are not fair. I have asked for admin help. The administrator asked for secondary sources. Adville simply doesn't care. I simply removed all primary sources and for the for the time being only, and as he has reverted my contributions even more times (they were primary as well, so this has been difficult). Please follow the talk-page and [6] first, I don't think you would find that it's I who am disruptive here. I truly have tried and tried with Adville - and I have also tried to follow what User:John asked for as well. And also you have agreed that there is nothing wrong in mentioning Article Depth. I have not removed any secondary source statements. Anyways I'm thinking of a suggestion which will be inline with what you, John and XXN etc have stated at the talk-page. And which ought to be acceptable even to Adville. But thanks for the warning. Boeing720 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing unfair about this. 3RR is a Bright-line rule, which you clearly and unambiguously failed to observe. Exceeding 3RR generally results in a block for the offending editor. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see my reply to DIYeditor. And he explained this matter very clearly. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I already read your reply to DIYeditor and in that reply you completely fail to show any insight about what you did wrong. Instead you simply wrote a lot of self justification that avoids the issue. Please demonstrate some understanding that you need to abide by Wikipedia\s rules or you might find yourself back at AN/I facing a block, I can;t put it any plainer than that. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No. I did wrong. But I can still comment on other issues, and understand at the same time. Boeing720 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Dan

If you read the links I gave you have the explanation. And what he did to be blocked. It is both in Swedish and english. Short answer to your question: no. We are discussing. There it was something else. Adville (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

But a whole year ? Boeing720 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not my descision. I just pressed the button after the long discussion on KAW. That is how it works on svwp, discuss before you do something drastic, if it is needed. (You also have to know a friend of us had passed away just before that incident and he had had the kind of issues that was the beginning of this kaw-discussion. You better read your self, because it is not nessesary to write it here again) Adville (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I can actually recall Obelix as one of the more fair persons at swviki, as of 2009-11. Nevertheless - "a long discussion" followed by a block, is at least not something administrators do here. You actually wrote it as if you had blocked him for A WHOLE YEAR. I simply must guess that time was a punishment, although the editor in question was no vandal. I guess he wrote stuff which some disagreed with. And the discussion later lead to a block. Without the use of the guidelines we have here. And to this, I must add, long discussions at article talk-pages, is a way to ensure high academic quality, I think we have here. Not each and every long discussion is fruitful, but if we disallowed them, it would damage the quality. Of that I'm certain. But here is an example of a less fruitful discussion . Look for headline "Exotic names?" and open the "closed window" just below at [[7]]. Just have a look it's quite funny. Boeing720 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I Will take a look. Please read the discussions I linked to and you Will understand and Most certenly also agree. Adville (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Truly sorry, but which links do you refer to ? Are they at any talk-page clearly intended for me, and about this issue ? I'm old enough to be allowed to be a bit confused sometimes... :) Boeing720 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Not clear enoght. On the same page as you asked me how I could block för a whole year. Just above that comment. Adville (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've found it. I feel someone neutral and native in English ought to investigate that matter from scratch. Boeing720 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is Old Now. Hope he is bettet now. Adville (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What is old and has bet what ? Or in other words - try to use a PC keyboard, that mobile phone of yours is no good for Wikipedia, apparently. Boeing720 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No. That was correct. That affair is old. December January. .. so hope he understand and no point taking it here now. Adville (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Old can be a matter of opinion... Boeing720 (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Missunderstood you. Exactly. Thats why I pointed it out at first. Look at the section on the page now. It is closed. Even if he tried the same in your section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adville (talk • contribs) 05:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Erich Linemayr

I feel there is something in your edit there, but I cannot work it out. What do you mean by orchid task? Also we can't (or at least shouldn't without a very very good reason) cite you tube. I have reverted it for now. AIRcorn (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The orchid task - game of 1974 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA–CONMEBOL play-off) between Chile and Soviet Union. (absent = one team on the pitch only) Chile scored 1-0 in the first minute, then he blew off the game, as there were no USSR players present at the pitch. It's not a cite of you tube, the film proves itself. Note the score board in the end. Linemayor was the referee. The task was not normal, with just one team on the pitch. But the match was played, for about a minute. Then it was not possible to make a kick-off for USSR. (About the political reasons, read the article). No big thing for me. But true. A 1973 You-Tube film can't be tampered with. Boeing720 (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong spelling of his name. But quote "On November 21, 1973, ten weeks after the coup, in an almost empty stadium, the Chilean players came out to the field. They had no opponents. As threatened, the Soviet team didn't show up. The Chileans kicked off, dribbled down the field, and shot into an open net. High above the stadium, the scoreboard read: Chile 1, Soviet Union 0." - https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-09-11/soccer-match-disgraced-chile.

Who the referee was - I have trusted 1974 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA–CONMEBOL play-off). I rembemer it (not the referee's name, but the "match"). Hope it's OK now - and thanks Boeing720 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

But what is an Orchid task? I have never heard that phrase and neither has google (flower arranging aside). AIRcorn (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK - "strangest task" is that better ? Perhaps my conceptio of what's orchid is wrong. But I have hear "that's orchid" perhaps spelled differently ? I'm not aware of where you live, it may be slang. It was most certainly not meant to refer to flowers , if Orchids are flowers or a kind of....etc....? :) I didn't understand that part initially. And I'm sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly you mean "awkward". Britmax (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Have now changed the flowers (?) to "stange", also at List of FIFA World Cup records. I'm truly sorry - and thanks for letting me know. Boeing720 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Britmax, thats quite possible. In films /British detective (like Morse,Vera,Banks,Midsummer Murders,Line of Duty etc) or in England, it may sound similar to me. Thanks! I'm sorry for these awkward matters. It was good of you both to not just revert/delete, but letting me know as well. Boeing720 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It all makes sense now. Don't know why I didn't tweak to Orchid=Awkward. By the way they are quite pretty plants, my wifes favourite in fact. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... that's good. I'm really sorry. As you understand, I'm not native in English. Can't help laughing "his most "flowerfull" task..." I can certainly see how crazy it must have looked in your eyes Greet your wife from me if you like. Cheers & thanks for the nice manner you brought this to my attention ! Boeing720 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for the picture, splendid ! Boeing720 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A History of the Modern World

The article A History of the Modern World has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A textbook with no sign of coverage, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. References are to the book itself or amazon.com .

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of A History of the Modern World for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A History of the Modern World 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/A History of the Modern World 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List european countries and cities in all languages for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List european countries and cities in all languages 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/List european countries and cities in all languages 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. Batternut (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Indenting and archive templates

I notice you often WP:INDENT more than necessary. It should just be one more : than the previous post. Makes it much easier to read. This is the same idea as indenting in a C program, the exact number of indents matters.

There is a template that provides a nice box for your talk page archives instead of giving them links like you have. The template is normally {{Archive box|auto=yes}}. Both {{Archives}} and {{Archive box}} show similar boxes and have a lot of useful options. Also, you can set up automatic archiving where the bot puts posts in the archives when they reach a certain age, per the instructions on WP:ARCHIVE.

Hope that helps tidy things up. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes , thanks. But I don't really see if/where I have failed. At the AfC of that list with my stupid name, someone else "made a time jump" (= not putting his/her reply at the bottom). Hence I followed him/her. (as it was brief) Or have I failed elsewhere ? Boeing720 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You just did it again on this page when you replied above (went from unindented to ::). In the AfD case look closely at the diffs[8]. You went from * to :::: and :::::::: to ::::::::::. Where someone replied at the same level as the post above them that was correct. They indented one more than the post they were replying to per WP:INDENT. It works very much (or exactly) like indenting in programming. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that one always only should use one more colon ( : ) ? That's easy to adapt. Haven't thought much about it, but will do in the future. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Now I stay at the same "indent level", as it's an addition to the same reply. (OK ?) They way one indent in programming, doesn't quite follow that pattern, but scopes. I guess however, you are aware of that, so I refrain from exemplification. I still get the analogy, and it was not meant as criticism. About that list (I've forgotten its label) -I have (managed) to adjust that list slightly. Tough I have to assume it will be deleted or possibly be "Userfied" (which I'm not quite familiar with) - but I object to criticism such as OR or "randomly chosen". (if you like to have a second look, only) But I can live with Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a Dictionary. Cheers! - if I may finish that way (?) Boeing720 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Boeing720. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Køge Bugt) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Køge Bugt, Boeing720!

Wikipedia editor Adotchar just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

If you'd like to do more for this page, expand the History section, and perhaps add an infobox!

To reply, leave a comment on Adotchar's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Adotchar| reply here 23:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MS-DOS 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gråen

Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Boeing720, thanks for creating Gråen!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for the time creating this page. I placed two tags here so you can improve the page, if ever possible.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The reason I created this article was a red link, and as I know what it's about. (And I hate red links) Would an infobox be an improvement ? There is naturally more to be said about this island. But most important for now, and as I see it, a photo or two. As I live nearby , I will take some shots. But currently the weather is gray, garay and gray + sunrise at 8:15 and sunset before 4pm... But thanks anyways ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at Babymissfortune's talk page.
Message added 10:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hello Boeing720: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks ! Really nice ! Boeing720 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Thank you very much, and Merry Christmas to you too ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet Another

Merry
Rexxmas
2018

--RexxS (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Thank you very much - Rexxmas, splendid and fun. Thanks again !

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Boeing720!!


Hi Boeing720, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! Boeing720 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Grisjakten

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Boeing720, thanks for creating Grisjakten!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 1 issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1981 Canada Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake Placid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)