User talk:Boeing720/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Last warning

Sorry I never got a chance to answer your questions above, I have rather a lot on in real life. Also, you were asking about things you have already repeatedly been told about. Peter Isotalo, an experienced editor and a linguist, keeps explaining them to you, as I see him do above. You ignore what he tells you; I really don't know if it's because you don't trust him to advise you well, or because you actually don't understand the concept of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Have you read any of the policies Peter keeps giving you links to? It's true that I've seen you quote policies occasionally, but only in a what we call a cherrypicking way: picking out fragments that can be used to support your own argument provided you ignore the context and the spirit of the policy, but not otherwise.

This essay-like wall of text is particularly alarming, as it's off-topic and, as Peter writes, more like an editorializing blog entry. Especially this bit. You don't seem to have taken on board a single thing you have been told. If you've clicked on any of the links you've been provided with, it doesn't show, but I will make one last attempt: please click on WP:UNDUE and read. If this remains your idea of contributing appropriately to an encyclopedia, I frankly can't blame sv.wiki for blocking you, because however much you may be trying, you simply aren't helping the encyclopedia at all; you're merely creating work for others. The next time you make an edit that falls foul of WP:NPOV and/or seems designed to promote your pro-Scanian separatism opinions, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. I'm sorry, but it's beginning to look like your ambition to contribute is greater than your competence to do so. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

First I have given up the ligvistic part to Peter Isosalo. But his knowledge of history is far from his lingvistic knowledges. My comparison of the Swedish media landscape with Danish media landscape, should be sourcered - but I got tired. But nothing of it isn't well-known in Denmark and Sweden. Like Danish media isn't centralized to Copenhagen as the Swedish one is to Stockholm. - what should be POV about that ? Perhaps Sweden or Scandinavia would be better articles for such issues, and no cause to threaten me.

"You don't seem to have taken on board a single thing you have been told.", You say - but I have, and that was about reliable sources only.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22333_.C3.85rsboken.22.2C_assembled_by_a_Scanian_foundation_in_Sweden

Although You put a notice here, it was linked to the issue above.

When You say - "I'm sorry, but it's beginning to look like your ambition to contribute is greater than your competence to do so." - why do You write things like that ? Make me angry ? Is that was an administrator is supposed to do ?

I have some 2750 contributions without being thretened ever at English Wikipedia. I have not surpressed evidence (what ?). Using Cherry picking (fallacy) gives me hardly much, as it needs both "needs additional citations for verification". And could You please explain what I have done to break this

You link to this about cherrypicking- "...is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position [what is that position ?], while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position [which have I forgotten ?]. There are several other contributers that has written about separatism, but I even removed "Skåne Partiet" part.

Quote "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

I know what "balance" means, and can only guess it's the latter You refer to (?). But the Swedish media landscape isn't a minority question, is it ? Marieberg (owner of the two largest Scanian newspapers and tabloid Kvällsposten), SVT (news) and TV4 (since May 2014 everything) are all located to Stockholm, this is a fact. We have no regional television in Sweden (with exception of the SVT short regional news), like in Denmark, Norway , Germany or the UK - dispite of the country's large north-south extent. Perhaps Sweden could be a better a article to put that in. However Danish media (especially television) still has impact on Scanian population, but not much in other parts of Sweden.

In what way have I been guilty of "promote your Scanian-separatism" opinions - infact I asked You to have a look at a clear change, in which I wanted to state "There is no political separatic party in Scania" instead of (in my mind, a too academical "electoral contence" formulation), but You had not the time for me, You stated.

However I do agree in Wikipedia is not the correct location to plead for Scanian separatism, but I have not written a single line about any such movement or party or otherwise - but wrighting well-sourcered Scanian history or Swedish media landscape has nothing what so ever to do with separatism. Further the "333Årsboken" has not been judged, and I find it silly to suggest that it's authors should be prohibited as source in Wikipedia. Including Wilhelm Moberg who died some 15-20 year before "333 Årsboken" was assembled !

Regardless of the stastus of SSF - can Wilhelm Moberg help that SSF put him in their book ?

I have never used the separatistic word even ! Nor have I attempted to "cherry-pick" parts of that. I do not know more than Peter Isosalo abot "SSF" , but it is clearly not separatistic, perhaps regionalistic. But do You say we should not write about issues like the Bloodbath in Klågerup 1811 ? And fake history ? I've read all Your links. The comparacy beteewen Swedish and Danish media landscape may be off-topic though. I think You partly are confusing me with other users. Please do not abuse Your administrational position. Boeing720 (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your claims about the media situation is that you have no sources to back up your conclusions. There are both local and regional media outlets, though they are headquartered in Stockholm. Hardly surprising in a country of less than 10 million. Yet even when there are regional newspapers like Sydsvenskan, you focus on the ownership. And through obvious confirmation bias, you simply leave out Helsingborgs Dagblad, Kristianstadsbladet, Skånska Dagbladet, the Scanian edition of Metro and the four P4 channels that cover Scania, Blekinge and Halland.

As for "prohibiting" authors, you have not taken on board my comments. If you wish to refer to authors included in SFF 333-årsboken, you need to quote them from their original sources, because the anthology is obviously tainted by SFF's minority views. And all of these authors will of course be judged by how relevant they are to the topic they write about. That means that even Moberg, a fiction writer and literary figure, will never be acceptable as an authority on history. He will only be relevant regarding opinions about Scanian regional culture and history, not neutral statements about the relationship between the central government and regions.

Bishonen's warning is completely fair since you keep adding problematic content without support from other users or reliable sources. That you still refer to "the Bloodbath in Kågerup" confirms your bias. Even if you don't literally say "Scania should be an independent state", you convey the idea that its culture, language and politics are supremely unique, even to the extent that is not actually to be considered Swedish. This view is actually rather chauvinist and was made clear evenback in 2013 when you tried to force the inclusion of more mentions of Scanian than any other dialect in Swedish language. You know, the one where you insisted on keeping "native Scanian" separate from "immigrant dialects". And when you compared me with a henchman of Francisco Franco.[1]

You have no support for any of your central tenets in secondary sources, especially not works that compare various regions of Sweden with one another; it's all based on your own reading of "raw" facts or at most the tendentious works of non-experts. And even if some of what you say could actually be proven, you have still taken it completely out of proportion and relevant context, like explaining modern media ownership in an article about a landskap. If you wish to contribute constructively to articles about Scania, you need tame your POV. And like everyone else, you need to adhere to reliable sources. All the time, no exceptions.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I din't leave radio P4 out, but in the 80's Radio Malmöhus and Radio Kristianstad wasn't a part of P4 but airing as of those names, without any other connection to Swedish Radio. But from sometime in the early or mid 90's both was put in to the new nation wide P4, for some hours. TV4 has closed down all their regional news, and SVT's regional news are not much. (Here is a call for comparacy, I think. Not only to Denmark, but to Germany, UK, Norway etc, media isn't concentrated to one single city like in Sweden, and yet Sweden has the longest north-south distance difference [or any distance You would prefer to use], 824 nautical miles)

I did indeed mention Helsingborgs Dagblad, HD which in August this year was bought by Sydsvenska Dagbladet Snällposten, SDS, already owned by Marieberg, Stockholm. And HD is indeed a 2001 merger of "old-HD" and NST. The latter, Nordvästra Skånes Tidningar was a 1950's (sometime) merger of atleast Engelholms Tidning, Landskrona Posten, Öresundsposten (Helsingborg), Klippans Tidning and Höganäs Tidning. So today Stockholm based Marieberg are the owners of atleast eight former Scanian newspapers and tabloid Kvällsposten, which was "South Swedish" but now is a part of Expressen, Stockholm. And as newspaper "Arbetet" (Malmö) was closed down some 15 years ago, this makes the local/regional situation even worse, from local perspectives. Only remaining newspapers are Skånska Dagbladet/Norra Skåne(Hässleholm) [- connected to the Center-party], Kristianstadbladet, Trelleborgs Allehanda and Ystad Allehanda, whose ownership isn't known to me, but they are all small and local, rather than regional. I'm not aware of the ownership of the only free "newspaper", "Metro", but they can hardly compare to newspapers in the mailbox or even to tabloids. And I believe it to also be owned by some group in Stockholm (unsure though) - however most of their journalists have lately become fired. All city newspaper (especially in the popolus western part of Skåne all importaint newspapers and tabloids are owned by Stockholm-tied cooperations or has been closed). And an article of a province certainly can deal with topics of newspapers and other available media.

"Klågeröds blodbad" is written by Uno Röndahl, a former policeman, and a long time ago. Regardless of Your oppinion of SSF, he couldn't help if You now disapprove of SSF. And a correct translation becomes "Klågeröd's Bloodbath", nothing else I've only used the the original title and cannot help if You personally disapporoves of it. I notice Your attempts to palliate this very sad event. (Besides there is still no consensus of "333Årsboken" in general). Compare to Ådalen 1931, when the military shot 9 workers [I think it was], I think Klågerup 1811 was an even worse event, which also was followed by extreme public punishments some months later. It's not bias but fact, sourcered facts.

This article - unlike Skåneland deals only with Scania (not Blekinge and Halland or Bornholm for that matter), so I cannot answer that question. I used no sources for SVT, TV4 and Marieberg to be located in Stockholm, neither to DR Copenhagen, TV2 Denmark Odense or Jyllandsposten, but I would have done so later - if the text wasn't rejected.

Since Danish news, opinions and some culture aswell spills over to Scania (which hardly is strange due to the short distance, especially from the popolus western parts, around daily 60 trains and 70 ferries. And the fact that most households have possiblity to watch Danish between 2 [the two largest] and 11 Danish TV-channels through DBV-T/T2 and MPEG4, and some possibly even more through cables [?]) I find nothing strange about this. And certainly not separatistic. In my experience there is sooner a distrust against Stockholm [as institute] rather than Sweden, or separatism. You may dislike that distrust, but I have not even written about it, nor about any separatism. Others have though.

In the referendums of 1922 and 1994 Scanian votes made the difference, "No" to prohibit alcohol and "yes" to join the EU, I think that is of encyclopedical matter. Especially since the province wasn't a part of Swedish until 1720. I don't remember 1922, however in 1994 almost all newspapers (and TV-news) showed maps about how few län that had voted for the EU. At that time it was big news, just find some newspaper from the day or days afterwards, and You'll see.

Also opinions has spilled over from Denmark, when Dansk Folkeparti began to grow, the topic of immigratiom-politics gradually become possible to speak of in Scania. (Sadly) this later led to the rise of Sverigedemokraterna, SD (which has very dubius roots). I havn't brought that subject up, mainly because I disagree with SD, but also that I don't care for finding supporting sources in that area, (and the same applies to the local Sjöbo-referendum in 1988.) This was an example of cross nation-oppinion spill only, and international oppinion-spill is in my mind of encyclopedical value. [Like I've stated "felt" or "fält" has replaced "klunga" within cycling, only due to the lack of Swedish TV-cover of cyling, I could give other examples aswell, but I'm abandoning the lingvistic field to You].

I feel it to be unfair of You to suggest that I have suggested You to be a "Franco-henchman".

I wrote "But just like Franco in Spain didn't permit Cathalonian, Peter Isotalo is a spokesperson for some kind of equal Swedish authorithies."

Which isn't of the same significance as You implied, is it ? And the background was that You first didn't want to recognize Scanian as a Swedish (or importaint Swedish dialect), and later it wasn't Danish-based either. You cannot have it both ways, can You ? But no, I do not think You are a Fascist, Peter ! However if You interprete my comment in that way, other questions arise.

Your own choices of sources are also rather strange, like an American 2005 source that points to nothing, exacly what is stated about Scania in volume 38 from 2005, I think You should add. Further than this link http://cps.sagepub.com/content/38/3/304.abstract is impossible to get. And please don't "cherry-pick". Boeing720 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Boeing, you have been repeatedly, and eventually indefinitely, blocked on sv.wiki for taking up too much of other editors' time,[2] and you will be blocked for the same reason here unless you dramatically change your style and start listening to what you're told. I sympathise especially with User:Yger's comment from 2012: "Du har också extremt svårt ta till dig problemen med dina dåliga redigeringar och vill i stället diskutera dessa (i oändlighet)." Or as the block reason for your previous account put it, "att envetet stå fast vid felaktigheter och aggressivt försvara egna inlagda stolligheter. Ovillighet att acceptera borttaget fluff och att artiklar får rätt struktur med rimlig prioritering av fakta."[3] I'm sorry to say these quotes (which I've supplied in Swedish to avoid needlessly scandalising you here on en.wiki) represent something totally recognisable to me from your talkpage editing here. We've gone out of our way to give you a lot of breaks and second and third chances here on en.wiki, and (speaking for myself) to avoid being prejudiced by your record on your native wiki, but there are limits on easy-going en.wiki too. I'm not going to argue with you further, and I also advise Peter against speaking to deaf ears any further. Just reform your article editing, please; you have certainly been told how. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC).

If I may explain about Swedih Wikipedia, a long time ago, I have written the details at my personal page. I resigned, whatever Wapne/Yger (he changed alias) might say. And if You symphatithse with Yger, and You are an administrator, I feel my time is up, whatever I do or say. Does it matter that Yger had written at his own page "Jag tycker inte om tjafs".

Of cource I take new inputs to heart, when they are correct. But just look at what Peter stated - that I had forgot Helsingborgs Dagblad, I most certainly had not - but it has been bought up by Sydsvenkan, already owned by Marieberg - in Stockholm. (And HD was already a total 1950's/2001 merge of atleast six Scanian newspapers. Please - You have to listen also.

By the way I have had very bold argumentations with more than one 10000+ articles administrator here in the past. And in serious matters like the lead of Erich von Manstein, French civilian casualies in Normandy Landings, without ever being threthened. If Your inputs were actual hints with intention of helpning, why then start with a threat ?

But I have studied them, all. Infact one meassurable strength of English wiki is its Depth - a comparision between amount of article stuff compared to talk-page stuff, this is about 10 times higher here than at Swedish Wiki. (Somewhere You can find these numbers, of all wikis). If one dislikes talk-pages, English wiki isn't the correct Wiki to edit, it seems. And if "but there are limits on easy-going en.wiki too" should be of help, then I'm sorry because I frankly don't see that argument at all. You will have difficulties finding any badly sourced article without a warning. Boeing720 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I need new glasses, however I see a content dispute being carried out in good faith. I don't see anything that approaches a blockable offense. Neutrality requires that we seek opposing points of view. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There are obvious limits to good faith, Chillum. Neutrality requires reliable sources and providing due weight to certain POVs. Have you read Boeing's reply to my request in this discussion to ditch personal views and refer to actual sources? Instead of "okay, I'll go look this up" or even a "help me find sources", the long-winded arguments about media ownership, "bloodbaths" and comparisons to Catalonia keep spilling out.

I welcome improvement on both regionalist or separatist views in Sweden. I'm perfectly aware of the antagonism and conflict that often exists between social and political elites in Stockholm and other parts of the country. But I don't see anything valuable in Boeing's contributions in this matter since they are based on very personal opinions and experiences.

If you feel Bishonen and I are overreacting, can you point to any of Boeing's contributions that in your view have been unjustly contested?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me. This user has been here since Jan 2012 without any sort of behavior issues. Taking a contrary point of view is not justification for blocking. Treating them like some new user POV pusher is not appropriate for a long term contributor. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 07:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If this is just a content dispute relating to Scanian topics, then which of Boeing's contributions reverted by other users do you feel have been valuable and in line with Wikipedia policy?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter I do not need to take a side in a content dispute to recognize one. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 09:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Our complaints have been that Boeing has repeatedly over the course of over a year, has been adding and arguing in favor of content that consistently violates WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV. Content disputes arise when opposing views collide and reasonable consensus can't be reached. If so, please specify to what extent we're being unreasonable in reverting Boeing's contributions to Scanian-related articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's been difficult to get any native English/American editors to take an interest in this conflict or in the conduct/disruption issue; nobody except Peter and (briefly) myself, both Swedes, has posted in the RSN thread Boeing started here, even after I tried to interest my talkpage stalkers in weighing in.User talk:Bishonen#Again with the separatists That is understandable, as the subject is unfamiliar, complex, and I would suppose not any too interesting to non-Swedes. (While reasonably familiar, it's frankly not very interesting to me either — I only got involved from a sense that somebody had to, when Peter I. brought it to my attention.) And the great length of many of Boeing's talkpage posts must be discouraging too. I'm all the more glad to see that you have overcome these discouragements, Chillum, and have researched Boeing's contributions in order to offer an opinion. At least, I'm assuming you have researched them; you wouldn't claim to recognize a content dispute from intuition, or merely from this talkpage. Would you consider posting on the RSN, too? It's still open, and could really do with outside eyes. It's true that the source discussed and maybe other links too are in Swedish, but monoglot anglophones could still perform a valuable service by evaluating the arguments put forth. BTW, if you're curious to know what those quotes from sv.wiki admins mean in my post above, I can e-mail you a translation; as I said, I'd rather not put it here. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC).

• (talk page stalker) Chillum, This is not just one content dispute, though. This is content disputes almost no matter where Boeing720 edits. I have been in content disputes with him on articles regarding Swedish football, and looking through Boeing720's contributions and the specific examples where he says he hasn't been threatened, there have still been disputes regarding the validity of his edits (such as this). I am sure that Boeing720 means no harm with his edits, but for me and anyone else that edits the same articles, it only creates more work trying to clean up the articles to comply with various guidelines. And when that happens all the time, I consider it disruptive editing, no matter if no harm is meant. – Elisson • T • C • 13:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Boeing720: I feel I may have put it too strongly when I described your POV as "separatist", since it's quite true that you don't promote separatism explicitly. I'll rephrase: "The next time you make an edit that falls foul of WP:NPOV and/or seems designed to promote your opinion that Scania is an oppressed region of Sweden – an opinion often associated with Scanian separatism — you will be blocked for disruptive editing”. Better? Please note that you're free to have this opinion; your opinions are none of my business. It only becomes my business when you use Scania-related articles as coatracks for your POV that Scania is an oppressed region. Note also, in the resentment you express at being "threatened" by me (see also your post on John's page), that admins aren't supposed to sanction users without first "threatening", or as we call it, "warning" them. Blocks without previous warnings are frowned on. And properly so; if people are coming close to being sanctioned, they should be told about it. Hence my "threats". Obviously, I don't expect you to be happy about them, and I don't enjoy posting them, either. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC).
  • I'll take responsibility for the "separatism" bit. Boeing, I also don't believe you are literally advocating Scania's independence from Sweden. It was more an issue of your using arguments closely related to those of separatist. And comparing Scanians with Catalans, Basques and Inuits. Peter ^Isotalo 14:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Boeing720 and User:Bishonen both asked me to comment here. Let be begin by apologising for how little help I've given you, Boeing720. You've been asking me to look in for ages and somehow I've always been too busy to help. Briefly, I'll sum up how I see it. This is after a fairly swift reading of a couple of user talk pages and a noticeboard posting. Peter (it's nice to see you again, by the way), you should not have characterised Boeing720's stance as "separatist" as it's a particularly loaded word at this time in history. It's like "terrorist" almost. It's possible to complain about other users without assassinating their character or categorising them, and it is far more efficacious in resolving disputes. Boeing720, I see a couple of problems with your editing. Like me, you come from an area with its own identity and traditions, some of whose inhabitants would wish for it to be considered an entity in its own right. Part of that may include wishing to see more use of (in your case) Scanian sources on certain articles. That's fine. I suggest you try to keep your talk page suggestions brief and businesslike and avoiding giving the impression that you are here to right great wrongs. It only puts people's backs up. You should also be aware that your English is not perfect and this combined with your long posts will reduce the chances of people understanding points that you make. Really, keep it focused on sources and articles and everything will go better. And please don't go away thinking there is something of a cabal at play here; I have disagreed quite strenuously with Peter even fairly recently and I am sure Bishonen and I have not always seen eye-to-eye either. Disagreement is healthy but at the end of the day we yield to consensual settlement of our differences. Please, take Bishonen's warning about your conduct and Peter's disagreement with you on article content as good faith contributions, just as you expect them to assume good faith regarding your additions. Finally, I will try to look at some of the specific content issues you are having with a view to brokering a compromise. --John (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I couldn't save what I was wrightning during the night, never noticed Your contribution. I presumed it was someone that already has participated in this matter and become afraid to loose all nights "work". You have absolutely noting to appologize to me for, John. And one of Your first advices is to be brief.... I have lingvistic repect for Peter, but I find Bishonen to be waiting for a reason to shoot me. I must presume they both, like I, began at Swedish Wikipedia, where the talk-pages hardly is used. (it has one of the lowest Depths of all). There are disagreements and disagreements, but this one differs from the very long discussion I had with Diannee over the lead of Erich von Manstein (there were a few more involved, but it was basically I vs Diannee about von Manstein's importance of the German strategy in 1940. I have read quite a lot on that subject. (Please don't believe I'm a fan of the Wehrmacht - or worse..) I even hated doing military service (which was a male duty in Sweden in the mid 80's), but since I had supporting soures I thought he had to be given his credit. Eventually it payed off (one single phrase... but sufficient). But not once did Diannee threathen me, nor question me. No one has, like Bishonen, not on this Wikipedia. I thank You very much for Your advices, only if I had read them before my answer(s). Boeing720 (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To Peter first - I'm not perfect. But in my oppinion, (sometimes) there's a Stockholmian (rather than) Swedish condescending of Scania. There is also, in my opinion, an oppression of Scanian history teaching in schools, altough some history teachers attempts to balance these aspects. Please note historical & history teaching oppression only. And examples like "We (Scanians) should be happy to have become Swedes rather than Danes". Further any good Scanian media-organ is currently lacking, within television obviosly so, and Radio aswell. (It was better in the 80's) And most newspapers are owned by Marieberg (now including Helsingborgs Dagblad ["old HD" + NST or "old HD", Engelholms Tidning, Klippans Tidning, Landskronaposten, Höganäs Tidning and Öresundsposten] or has been closed.) The most obvious example is the tabloid Kvällsposten, which now is reduced to a varity of Expressen.

All this has affected Scania and its population in many ways, and today the political part isn't the major compared to f.i. which events that are covered. "Innocent" examples - sports like Bandy, cross-country skiing (with or withot gun) and Speedway, sports which lackes traditional interest in Scania, has gained publicity in favour of Tour de France and other cykle races (which was well-covered in Kvällsposten before) and Handball. Though f.i. Ingemar Stenmark was equally popular in Scania as elsewhere. But ownership is not without importance, geographical aswell as political. The latter ought to be well-known (atleast where two newspapers is or has been available. An example of, not "oppression" (have I ever used that word ?), but of "political disregarding" or "unawareness" of Scanian matters, infrastructure is a good example. The tunnel under Hallandsåsen, delayed for some 20 years. (I'm though not talking about the delay now.) - But during the last five years or so, it has been clear that the tunnel will open in 2015. Initially intended as a part of a fast dual track railway between the sceond (Gothenburg) and third city (Malmö) of Sweden. But dispite a delay of around 20 years, the opening in next year will still not solve the problem, since both a part in Varberg and the entire 25 km track between Ängelholm and Helsingborg still will be a single track, along a 150 years old section. With very small radiuses [plural of radius ?] and a 100 meter altitude difference during the last 2-3 km down to Helsingborg, and maximum speed down to 10-30 km/h (depending on conditions).

Why the spend all that money on the tunnel, but not solve the last parts ? It's like this issue never even has occured to the ones that decides. There are other similar matters, as the tracks between Malmö C and Lund. After the new Stockholm tunnel Sammanbindningsbanan (?) will open, that part will be the most busy in Sweden. And here is (atleast) 4 tracks a necessety, and will not be expensive to build in the very flat, rock and stone free landscape. And also the motorway E6, is extremely trafficated, especially with lorries. (Parts of the E22 aswell, but this still isn't motorway at all) And here we come to the issue of north-south extent of the country, as 24 meter long lorries are permitted in Sweden, good enough for the far north, I presume. But not in heavier traffic, where they are concidered hazardious, if not in Sweden so in Denmark, Poland, Germany, the UK, Belgium, Holland, France etc - 18,5 meter is the usual limit. Also the 2005 law about winter-tires isn't suitable for Scanian winter conditions, a prohibitation of studded tires would be better in combination with lower speed limits in case of snow or ice. A driver that puts on such tires in october and uses them until mid-May, both destoy the tires and causes damages on the roads. While they are excellent on roads that cannot be deiced due to too low temperatures.

This is of cource not any real oppression, but matters that is regarded as of lower importance - where the power is, in Stockholm. (I'm aware that the rules only applies to "in winter weather" and studdfree winter tires are available, but if capital of Sweden was locaded in Scania, these laws would have been different, and the same would also be the case, if such matters were decided at regional level)

Back to railroads, an underground line between Kungsträdgården - Nacka seems to be more importaint than solving the last two pieces of the Gothenburg-Malmö railway, and also the extremely expensive motorway tunnel outside Stockholm. I read somewhere those 20 km motorway answered to four bridges like Öresundsbron (where Denmark payed half). Likewise, in the far North, the railroad between Umeå and Luleå has been "forgotten". So I find Sweden to be a very centralized country, and the parts that relates to Scania ought not to be forgotten in the article Scania. Though the oppression of individuals is long gone (just to clearify that part), and I do not believe I have written anything like that. But the historical oppression is a part of Scanian and Swedish history. Just like "Dackefejden" or "Klockarupproret". Surelly You can see there had to be an explination of "Snapphanarna"'s Danish support during the wars. But that is history now, and to my knowledge "Klågeröd" 1811 was the last time military force was used on the population. This must be separated (of cource) from current day problems.

Some of Your early comments to me, have caused some unnecessary comparisons from my side. Even though You put it out of context, I'm still sorry if You felt some kind of "Fascist accusation" . I should have chosen other words. Whithin lingvistics, I concider You as a great asset for Wikipedia. Perhaps Your basic knowledge of Scania and its history doesn't reach that same high level (it would be next to impossible, or like being a remarqable surgeon and Nobel-price novel winner at the same time). Although I agree with You about sources and sources of quality is what Wikipedia is beased upon.

If I'm still am welcomme here, I hope we (You and I), where and if, we meet again can disregard from old troubles.

To Chillum, - thanks for pointing out some facts. And especially the fact that different opinions are not a cause for blocking.

To Bishonen - You state "And the great length of many of Boeing's talkpage posts must be discouraging too" But what crimes have You really found ?

I once made a too long quotation from a Jewish webbsite, reg. Erich von Manstein, this was too long according to American copyright laws. (And I'm brought up with teachers that copied 10-20 pages from books, just as explination) That's the only warning I have recieved during 2,501 contributions to English Wikipedia, until You appeared. I had though once a very unfortunate controversy with User:Reckless182, it was indeed unfortunate due to the fact that I was right on goal average not -difference was used in Allsvenskan's beginning, but when I finally managed to prove this for User:Reckless182, I used a formulation which I had not done, if I only had noticed his appology. That was indeed unfortunate, but I have appologized and all that is put behind us now, and I regard him as a fried today. (Sometimes I even mail him, to congratulate him when Malmö FF is doing well in Europe). There were also some pictures I was given permission to use at Wikipedia by their copyright owner, and which was removed by User:Werieth (press that link, if You don't mind), but of cource it was a misstake to assume this was sufficient. Otherwise I have a clean record dispite my sometimes bold contributions.

Please also study the last part, about Wikipedia Depth

To Johan Elisson - Sometimes I follow the Jimmy Wales (?) call to be bold. And like I have stated before, this has occationally led to some long talk-page discussions with very experienced contributors and administrators, without ever reciving any personal criticism like lately has been the case. We (You and I) have elsewise only met in the Allsvenskan article, where my contributions mainly is the table of its historical formates and adding international achievements. But questions like from which year the offside rule was changed or when goal average was abandoned are of encyclopedical value I think. And in order to declare the first chairman of the Swedish Football Association a nazi-sympathizer, I feel we need a source, a quality source. But not even the Aftonbladet-source used supports the idea of Clarence von Rosen to have been a nazi-sympathizer. All the tracks I followed have only led to his wife's sister marriage to Herman Göring in the early 1920's. If we can find a source which proves von Rosen as a nazi-sympathizer, then of cource it must be added though. Further I think our discussions at the talk-page has been enlightening for both of us, aswell as of benefit for the article.

To all interested

I'm a believer in the use of talk-pages, especially since they in general ensures a better quality of the articles, known as depth - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_article_depth. (sorry about the external link, I couldn't find any smoother way) Some interesting figures though.

• position - language - articles - depth
• 1, English, 4 605 612, 874.09
• 13, French, 1 545 191, 186.63
• 14, Spanish, 1 125 859, 175.01
• 20, Russian, 1 148 268, 114.59
• 30, Danish, 191 396, 70.07
• 42, Finnish, 354 982, 44.78
• 103, Swedish 1 942 972, 10.57
• 127, is the bottom of this table

A table (or part of) which may explain why only people from "my own" country makes complaints - the amount of articles in Swedish is impressive, but apparently Swedes use the talk-pages next to nothing, in comparission with this Wikipedia. It's 85 times higher here, and I think this puts an end to the 2009-2010 Swedish criticism about me, and my supposed "endless" discussions. As I recall Swedish Wikipedia, there shouldn't be "en massa tjafs" ("a lot of fuss"), stated by the administrator who first got my interest to vanish, then disappeared but had only changed his alias (which temporary brought me back there, just to be expelled).

And time after time strange things related to Swedish Wikipedia has comed into light. Civil servants and politicans editing articles about themselves or their positions, the spokesman of Wikipedia in Sweden, Lennart Guldbrandsson's criticism of how it's ruled, beginners scared away etc (especially the latter was I a victim of, in my opinion).

And I still do not think I have made any severe crime against the general Wikipedia guidelines (although Bishonen and Peter Isosalo have not "spoken for deaf ears").

However about WP:RS - When Peter Isosalo now accept f.i. that Uno Röndahl has used "official Swedish military sources", as Röndahl explains in his work, and the general ban of "333Årsboken" no longer exists, but instead comes down to each autors and whether they are sourcered aswell, then this part seems to be setteled. And for the record only the article Klågerup riots has nothing to do with me. About WP:PRIMARY, I found the results of three Swedish referendums, as examples of when the general Scanian oppinion have differed from Sweden's in general. Clearly as I presented them, they were primary sources, and no more than the necessary explaining was done. I didn't make any far-fetched conclutions based on those results, I simply thought they were interesting in themselves. However after removing also all comments, still the accusations remained. When only primary sources are available, they may be used (without own interpretations). Unlike an other user have I not cherry picked a political party which recieved a very tiny amount of the votes in a general election in order to draw conclutions based on that. Nor have I used any source that cannot be found at a library of some quality, or a source whose webbsite is unavailable for all but a few - so I think we are about even there. Regarding WP:NPOV and Scanian history 1600-1850, sources that are concidered reliable in Sweden may be the contrary in Denmark and vice versa. It's a delicate matter whatever source one may use. But I haven't even mentioned such matters. (In order to solve such matters, both sides, where they differ, could both be written, that is one way of achieving NPOV atlest.

In general I find the criticism against me to be vague aswell as heavily excessive, and partly based on rumours spread by a Swedish-Stockholmian administrator at another Wikipedia.

Bishonen states "The next time you make an edit that falls foul of WP:NPOV and/or seems designed to promote your opinion that Scania is an oppressed region of Sweden – an opinion often associated with Scanian separatism — you will be blocked for disruptive editing". First a question, If there now is a such "Scanian separatism" as You writes about, do You then think we (=Wikipedia) is somehow obligated to not mention this separatism ? Or if there is revealed obvious current oppression, are we obliged not to mention that either ? Isn't it a matter of reliable sources sooner ? Second - like I've told Peter Isosalo, I do not think Scania is an oppressed province of Sweden today, however it has been, and for a duration of atleast two centuries. Also school teaching that suggests "We should be grateful of being Swedes rather than Danes", I find oppresive, if You like.

And attempting to contribute under "gunpoint" is next to impossible, I think everyone can understand that. Hence, I also think a non-Swedish administrator should decide if I'm to be blocked or not. Boeing720 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr (too long, didn't read). I'm sorry, but I won't read several thousand words of twaddle that simply isn't relevant to the discussion here, to find the few hundred words that are. – Elisson • T • C • 09:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Too long, read most. Unfortunately no indication of improvement. Note that Boeing was permanently blocked along with seven sock puppets on Swedish Wikipedia between 2009 and 2013 and that this was upheld only a month ago (here is the post where Boeing states he is JPEriksson). For pretty much the same type of behavior as here. On Boeing's Swedish talkpage, there's even allusion to consultations with a lawyer regarding defamation due to the IP range blocks resulting from the ban. I recently quit Swedish Wikipedia for good for various reasons, including dislike of trigger-happy admins, but even I sympathize with their decision in this case.

I for one am not eager to spend/waste time tutoring an edtior like Boeing, with several years of experience, through beginner-level aspects of WP:RS and WP:NPOV while he continues to dump his personal thoughts in article space. If he wants to improve Wikipedia, he is obliged to do his own homework. Here's the jist of the recommendations I have alreayd provided: rely on experts or widely-recognized authors in the field, don't give undue weight to tiny minority opinions, never rely solely on primary sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Answer - Between 2010 until recently people with my IP-range, could if IP-editing, recieve a message where my name spelled "JP Ericsson" came up toghther with a blocking. I was lerted of this by others. (like- "Is that you?"). So eventually regading consultations with a lawyer regarding defamation, I asked Swedish Wikipedia to atleast change that message to "Boeing 720" (or whatever they liked), after have shown this public message to an advocate. He recommended me to make a request to change that text before taking any legal actions. Which they did ! I've never been a sock-puppet, by using the same alias to support my own oppinions. As I explained, when I dicovered that administrator Wapne (or Wanpe) had disappeared as administrator, I began agagin - but soon it was revealed the administrator only had changed name to Yger. So in Your eyes either Wapne/Yger also must be a sock puppet, or none of us.

Swedish Wikipedia has by the way , as You can see here

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_article_depth

One of the lowest Depths, 10 compared to English 874, a 103rd place out of 127. Much ::::::due to this mentioned admin, I presume. Boeing720 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Right. Not sock puppets, then. Just blocked under different accounts.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not only I - other were blocked aswell, like my ex-neighbour who today must be close to 70, Bengt Johannesson. While the last account I used "DenAndeChagall" still is open, I think. I did inform them about this atleast 2 years ago or so, among with my first attempt to remove the "JP Ericsson blocking of all Ip-editors" . But it's only Wanpe/Wapne-Yger who cares. Atleast I haven't for a long time. And the main reason for Swedish close to bottom Depth-position, I say has emerged from thar perticular administrator. He wanted "no discissions at the talk-pages", he even stated so at his page. Boeing720 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanpe and Yger are two separate users, though Wanpe is no longer active. The sanctions against you were not the work of just one person.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Klågerup

Do you understand why this revert was made? This is not a rhetorical question.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please take my advice Boeing720. Brief, business-like posts using quality sources on article talk pages, avoiding giving the impression that you are here to right great wrongs.. These edits as they stood had all sorts of problems and it was right to revert them. --John (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter, Perhaps You can enlighten me, briefly or as You want. Boeing720 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I will. You inserted the text

  The last recorded Swedish military assult on civil population in Scania, is usually labeled Klågeröd's bloodbath. At 15. June 1811, when 30-40 men were shot in this very sad event. <ref>Swedish interpretated telling of this and its related events, in detail, including names, eye-whitnesses, verdicts etc, the sources which its authors have used are taken from courts, local, regional and national archives (including "Riksarkivet") and fullfills thereby all Wikipedia criteria of quality sources. http://www.malmo.se/download/18.30ef14131fc0b87678000713/1383646347323/1811+Bondeupproret+i+Sk%C3%A5ne.lag.pdf</ref><ref>A modern overview http://www.alltomhistoria.se/artiklar/klagerupskravallerna-1811/ </ref><ref>Also this excuse is worth reading, Sydsvenska Dagbladet Snällposten, Malmö</ref>

1. Wording like "very sad event", "bloodbath" and "excuse" flagrantly fails WP:NPOV and is the language of the editor come to right great wrongs.
2. Errors like "assult", "interpretated" and "eye-whitnesses" speak of someone who does not write well in English and whose ability to accurately paraphrase sources into English must therefore be in doubt.
3. For this sort of stuff we need really good sources. Your three two online sources do not immediately seem to constitute such, and your fourth third one is not accessible or verifiable.

• Please, in the future, follow my advice. Brief business-like suggestions in talk, citing high quality sources. If you do so, you will find things go so much better. --John (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I told Bishonen, the main source is the one from Malmö Museum (the PDF-file). It uses "blodbad" ("bloodbath") and "slakt" ("slaughter") however You are correct in "sad event", I cannot find that in the source. Of cource "ögonvittne" should be spelled "eye-witness", but I made no spelling errors in the article. Did I use the word "excuse" ? - it was just the headline from the Sydsvenska Dagbladet Snällposten article ("ursäkt") and (the word) wasn't used in the article. Peter, Surelly the main issue must be whether this is an acceptable source or not. http://www.malmo.se/download/18.30ef14131fc0b87678000713/1383646347323/1811+Bondeupproret+i+Sk%C3%A5ne.lag.pdf I'm not too fond of all illustrations, but the source fulfills whats needed. Preword by Sven Rosborn, chief of Malmö museum. Boeing720 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC) By the way I used this source (+ two from newspaper/popoular history), why You mention four I don't know. Boeing720 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for the mistake. I suggest you raise dispassionately in article talk the question of whether this source is acceptable for the changes you propose should be made in the article. The text I highlighted was the text you added to the article and another editor removed. --John (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It was also a mistake from me, sorry. I thought all replies come from Peter, sorry. But I'm keen to know what Peter has to say about this source

http://www.malmo.se/download/18.30ef14131fc0b87678000713/1383646347323/1811+Bondeupproret+i+Sk%C3%A5ne.lag.pdf

Boeing720 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ådalen shootings - have a look at how the Wikipedia guidelines are followed in this article, and this was about five killings, not 30-40 + capital punishments afterwards. Boeing720 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a dreadful article, full of material that is unreferenced and has been challenged since 2007. Do you have sources you could use to improve this article? Otherwise I'm afraid most of it will have to be deleted. --John (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that article has obviously been flagged since 2007. I know that much (from television) that the event in Ådalen 1931 oftenly has been described as "a horrific event" at its time, and it's sometimes still used within the Swedish working-class. Like the Social Democrats, previous Communits, the working class trade union (L.O.)- for slogans like "Never Ådalen -31 again". I have no material on the matter. But it's concidered as a fairly importaint part of Swedish 20th Century history, if You ask me. From a brief Swedish "googeling" on "Ådalen 1931" I found this https://solidaritetstanken.wordpress.com/tag/adalen-31/ but its further links goes to Swedish Wikipedia or are dead. My intention with this example, was though to show how different parts of Swedish history are given unequal attention (by some users at this Wikipedia). If I'm to advice You, perhaps the autors of the article could be contacted first ? Preferably by an administrator (and hardly by me right now..). If there is no reply within a few days, please return to me, I'll might find some sources meanwhile, atleast from some of my encyklopedias. That is my suggestion, though the article as such isn't my cup of tea, as it's a bit outside my scope of historical interest. But if no other contributer (with better insight of the matter than I currently have) appears I surelly will make an attempt to save what's possible. Thanks for Your reply, John Boeing720 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Bondeupproret i Skåne is kinda-sorta reliable, but not a very good source. All of it is written by Rosborn as far as I know. He's an archaeologist/museum director, though, not an historian. From my experience of him, he only seems to publish through the museum he works for. He is not tied to any university and I've noted before that he has a tendency to sprinkle his texts with plenty of dramatizations (same here).

I don't know if Bondeupproret actually refers to the clash at Klågerup "the Klågerup bloodbath" (or something like that); the pdf isn't searchable. If you find a name, you should cite the specific page(s) and see if it matches other reliable sources.

Any comparison Ådalen shootings is out of the question, btw. Ådalen happened over a century later in a neutral, industrialized, democratic state where any use of military force against civilians was a major political scandal. You can't compare it with events that took place when Sweden was still an undemocratic monarchy without basic civil rights, and that was embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, but no. Rosborn has only indroduced the material (and obviously printed it aswell, I presume due to the ISBN), so he has of cource approved of it. You have to go to page 78, there You will find the five authors who label themselves as "Baragillet" and the sources they have used impresses me. As You say, they deal not only with the military shootings of 30-40 civilians in Klågerup, but also explain all its background and aftermath. I only brought Ådalen shootings up to show how little sources (if any) that was used in that article, as an comparing example.

If we disregard of articles and sources, which crime You or I find to be the worst, is only a matter of oppinion, isn't it ? Either we (entire Wikipedia) follow the same "rules" for sources (to be brief), or Wikipedia will stop working in the end. I have myself removed many silly sources (or interpretations of their contence). Latest was Allsvenskan, where Clarence von Rosen was declared "Nazi-symphathizer" due to this

http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/sport/0012/13/pokal.html

Further in a really serious subject - Nazism, in which I some 1,5 years ago disapproved of Nazism described "as a varity of Fascism" (too gentle and ideologically wrong, I still think), but here N-HH or/and TFD (who very well might be one and the same, by the way [based on I've seen both arguing also on an other talk-page + one seems "hard" the other seems "softer", but suddenly it's reversed. I'm not certain though] talkes about mainstream of authors rather than quality of authors (archive 22. [several entries] and 26. [Mussulinis 1934 speech in Bari, given after the nazi assasination of fascist-friendly Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss]). Be aware though ! In the context of that talk-page(s), my reply the other night was fairly short (!), compared to the average length there...

But I hope You can see my point, only the deepest of academical authors vs mainstream.

The same interpretation of all WP:xxx's is called for, I think. Thank's for Your reply. by the way. Boeing720 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So the content is written by an anonymous group of people with no standing as experts whatsoever? Sounds like was too generous about considering it a reliable source. Even the article in Populär Historia is preferable in comparison.

We have rules for this for the "entire Wikipedia". They're described at WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Read them. Compare them. Don't try to make them cancel out each other in a way that favors your own opinion. You've been editing Wikipedia since at least 2009.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I believe the contence to be written in the early 80's by those (named) authors, however approved of and printed by Sven Rosborn. Like a thesis approved by a professor. And also exhibited at Malmöhus (where Malmö Museum resides) in -91. And it's certainly a better source for The 1811 Scanian uprising than what currently exists for Ådalen shootings. Didn't You notice the primary sources the authors had used ?

Here are some other troublesome historical articles by the way Dacke War, Magnus Stenbock, History of Szczecin, History of Flanders, (they were found in minutes) - and if printed Encyclopedias were to be omitted as sources, numerous articles would be in severe troubles.

I have never questioned the basic policies of Wikipedia guidelines. And the grand problem here isn't for me to read all guidelines that You tell me over and over and over again, my friend (a part of Eve of Destrtuction by Barry McGuire) but in this case also my words - as I have read the guidelines several times in extreme detail, mostly.

Though. There is, has always been and will presumably always be a general difference between legislation, intention of the latter aswell as interpretation of the laws (or guidelines) - all we can do is our best. The best for Wikipedia in general, that is. Including Scanian history aswell, from a global perspective rather from any other perspective. I do not question any guidelines.

You may leave here for four Days in Space, but when You return, it's the same old place

Boeing720 (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability -

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

   university-level textbooks
   books published by respected publishing houses
   magazines
   journals
   mainstream newspapers.

"

Isn't Sydsvenska Dagbladet Snällposten a mainstream newspaper ?

Isn't "Allt om Historia" a magazine ?

Isn't the by Sven Rosborn approved book/PDF a university-level textbook ? Dispite of its illustrations ? Boeing720 (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sydsvenskan is a newspaper. Newspapers report current news. They are reliable sources for news and opinions on current events. Social unrest in the 1810s is not current news.

Rosborn is not a professor. He has a licentiate degree in archaeology, not a doctorate. Rosborn's occupation appears to be director (or somthing) of Malmö Museum. He's also not trained in history, which is a separate academic field. Having a degree in one doesn't make you an expert in the other.

Bondeupproret i Skåne is not a university-level textbook. It's a popular history book published by the museum Rosborn works for (not any major publishing house). Here is a list of textbooks used in a course on history at Stockholm University. A modern thesis in history (assuming you men a doctoral thesis) is the result of four years of fulltime work with research and studies combined with rigorous peer review. They are strictly focused on specific and fairly narrow topics. Like this example of a recent thesis on Scanian history, identity and ideology 1865-2000. You might want to check it out.

Popualar history magazines like Allt om Historia are generally reliable. They don't always provide summaries of current academic consenus, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit You are correct about Sydsvenskan. Had a look at the thesis, but cannot access it. Shouldn't an examinator be given, professor or not, by the way ? I do realize that history differs from archeology, just like zoology differs from ethology etc. But still the list of material used, including older text sources is rather impressive, I think. I suppose Rosborn had historical expertize, before he made the exhibition, and that Malmö Museum wouldn't present unreliable history. (Have You ever heared the song I quoted twice, by the way ? [of no matter at all]). Boeing720 (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints by the way Boeing720 (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before: you need to go to a library to find sources on history that are of decent quality. You're not going to find what you're looking for free online.

Bondeupproret is a book, not an exhibition. Completely different things. It has no "examinator" because popular history isn never peer reviewed. And unless it actually says "fact checked" (faktagranskad) by someone or something like that, there has been no formal review. You never "cite" an exhibition as a source for anything. Not even most official museum catalogs are particularly good sources since they are more like brief pamphlets than serious works. Trust me, I worked at the Vasa Museum for a while. It's the second most popualar museum in Sweden and even their fairly slick catalog wasn't suited as a general source on Vasa.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been there once, at the old location. Water was still poured on the ship, I wasn't more than around 8 years old. But a minor thing about "Bondeupproret", its PDF-file doubtlessly comes from a book, true (ISBN and everything). But its five original authors "Baragillet" wrote it a decade earlier. At page 3, right column, almost at the top "En grupp hembygsforskare har i denna bok getts möjligheter att få sitt forskningsmaterial publicerat. Mycket i boken är ett resultat av ett idogt och mödosamt forskningsarbete. Boken ger dessutom information och upplevelse långt utanför utställningens begränsningar." I interprete this as the contence was written in 1982, and in 1991 it was printed, together with an exhibition at the museum. Although I don't doubt the poorer quality of museum-exhibision material in general, this differs a bit. Or doesn't it ? Since the exhibision was based on the 1982 source. - At second thought though, this also means it is a book, just like You say. (With illustrations made later, and I find them so many, that they are disturbing. To me atleast.) I can see Your

objections, but personally I would not concider it's main lines to be a collection of bullshit. If it hasn't been supervised, so almost, or "filtered" somehow. I also wonder if a 160-points-history-degree author would have interpreted the souces differently (?) And take William L Shirer for instance, his The Rise and fall of the Third Reich is still regarded of high value, and Winston Churchill even won the Nobel prize (although not historical, I realize that) for his 6 volymes of Second World War diary , but in competition with novel authors. None of those (Shirer and Churchill) had historical education. And not all historicans are concidered to be right either, take David Irving as an example. Of cource within my profession (programming [of embedded system]), many are more or less autodidacts or "semi-autodidacts", which possibly may affect my point of views in other works aswell. Boeing720 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter ! If possible, Do You know anything of this author

"Bondupproret i Klågerup : en folklifsbild från början af detta århundrade

Åberg, Jon Olof, 1843-1898(Författare)

Stockholm : Fredrikson, 1885

58 s." - a PDF from the Royal Library in Stockholm goes for 274 SEK.

Any answer appriciated Boeing720 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Hembygdsforskare ("local history society researcher") basically means "a bunch of people writing about stuff they like on their spare time", ie the analog equivalent of a Wikipedian. But without any neutrality policies to guide them. And you're seriously asking me if you should pay 274 kr for a pdf of a 130-year-old book written by an "author of romanticized depiction of Swedish history"?

You just keep coming up with intricate ways of avoiding mainstream scholarship and present more fanciful comparisons to argue your case. You're still debating from the perspective that you wish to Set Things Straight. There is no further advice I can give you that is going to help.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't really kidding. But thanks fot the advice. I only knew what I wrote. Please don't draw too much conclution in a simple question.

However something obviously happened in Klågerup in 1811 which got 30-40 people killed, and I don't believe the re-nationalization process was largely free of troubles. There was also the issue of what's in Sweden is known as skiftet, a largely good process, but atleast Rutger Maclean was enforcing it by burning villages at his feodal domains. (This has been shown in a Swedish TV-series or film) I also believe all Danish litterature was banned for a very long time, which increased the illiteracy. I'm not sure there is a mainstream of Scanian historical research at all, for the period 1719-around 1840's. For instance also in 1830, when revolutions spread through Europe. In the 1840's the Scandinavism began. But the very last minor troubles came between the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian Union in 1905 and the The Three King's meeting in Malmö in 1914. My mother's mother (1909-1996) came from Malmö and have told me many about many historical matters. Mainly about the Second World War, one of her two sisters' husband was pro-German and pro-Hitler a long time [who I recall rather well] although he later claimed to have known nothing about the Holocaust. She also remembered all church bells rang at the outbreak of the first World War [it was the common way to tell people something importaint had happened, by 1914 perhaps the last time ever in that scale], the 1914 Baltic exhibition in Malmö etc. But also that people [of the rather upper class she grew up in] disliked the Gustav X Adolf statue at Stortorget in Malmö. It was rather new when she grew up. Whithout Set Things Straight, I think Scania is entiteled to its own local history, just like any other part of Sweden or elsewhere, whatever it may be. It differs from most other Swedish provinces by have been a part of Denmark. But I'm not intending to break the Wikipedia guidelines. I hope this reply isn't disappointing to You, as I truely believe You are helping me. Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have indeed stuied "Editing Wikipedia:Tendentious editing" Boeing720 (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Bishonen

Boeing720, I replied to your note about your "Klågerup's Bloodbath" edits on my page many hours ago, and included a point about your in-universe arguing in a footnote, which I don't see mentioned above; also I shared some general concerns. I can't tell if you've read my post there or not, but I was hoping it would be illuminating for you. Perhaps it's best I move our dialogue there to this page: see below. Bishonen | talk 00:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

Klågerup's Bloodbath

(This section has been moved from User talk:Bishonen, with the original timestamps, to keep commentary on your "Klågerup's Bloodbath" edits all in one place. Bishonen | talk.)

Hello Bishonen. I'm sorry for our "bad feeling", I won't be long. I have added "Klågerup's Bloodbath" to Scania-history again (a few sentances only) but after have found a source with secondary interpretation of overwhealming evidences (or sources as we say), also for details. It goes very deep in background etc. Old protocols are provided in the appendix etc. Reason I tell You this that I wouldn't have added the other two sources (from Sydsvenkan and Illustrerad vetenskap) if it wasn't for the Malmö museum source (as of now), The original authors are old or gone, i presume. I do also disapprove of bad sources. (I gave You a task not that long ago, by the way). I don't find Skåne "oppressed" today, but being teached in school "We should be glad of being Swedes rather than Danes" isn't my cup of tea, perhaps simply because I like Danes and Denmark. That has nothing to do with poor sources. All the best, Sinceriously Boeing720 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Gave me a task? Did you really? I'm a volunteer, you know. But I do understand that you sometimes find it hard to choose the best expressions in a foreign language. There's no "bad feeling" on my part, believe it or not. (Where would it come from? I'm from Skåne myself.) My interest is in keeping articles encyclopedic and, as an admin, my particular interest is in making it possible for contributors to spend their time contributing content, rather than arguing (fruitlessly, as far as I have seen) with you and cleaning up.

OK, looking at your latest edits to Scania: please don't argue about Wikipedia's footnote criteria in a footnote! We write articles for ordinary readers, consulting the encyclopedia, to read. Including the footnotes. We don't expose them to arguments about our internal policies. That's what the talkpage is for. And we don't editorialise, such as by calling an event "very sad". I'm sorry, but I really think your sense of what it means to write an encyclopedia needs work. Your addition is also seriously WP:UNDUE in my opinion; I see Johnuniq has reverted it with a link to that policy. (You've been linked to WP:UNDUE several times. Have you clicked on it and read? Keeping additons "due" — relevant, and of reasonable proportions — is one of your big problems, and that was also what I was talking about when I linked you to WP:COAT.)

It frustrates me the way I'm having to explain things that have been explained many times before. Look, Boeing720, I'm really reluctant to block you, especially as I take your note to me here, about the new source, as showing that you're trying in good faith to write in a policy-compliant way, but I'm very concerned. Are you sure you're in the right place? All these complaints must be frustrating. Speaking of complaints, I can't avoid making another one: I'm flabbergasted at the way you answered a sentence I'd written on your page (speaking to Chillum), "And the great length of many of Boeing's talkpage posts must be discouraging too"" with an outsize, humongeous monster of a talkpage comment, five screenfulls on my good big monitor. I couldn't believe it. And further.. you also answered that short sentence of mine with direct commentary which reads like you hadn't understood it. That's why I've linked a couple of the words in it to wiktionary definitions. Are you sure the English Wikipedia is the place for you? I realize you're not allowed to contribute to sv.wiki, but there are many other fish in the internet sea. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

-------------End of moved material-------------------

Sorry for the choice of word. But in Scania - "Separatism" begins - "There are no independence movements organized for electoral contests in Scania," supported by

(ref name=)"Sorens" Sorens, Jason (2005). The Cross-Sectional Determinants of Secessionism in Advanced Democracies. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3, 304-326 (2005). doi:10.1177/0010414004272538 2005 SAGE Publications. (ref)

Didn't I ask You if You could have a look at that source, as I can't access anything but a general page. Do You concider it verifyable ?. This was my reason for my wrong choice of word, and Sorry again. Complaints are indeed frustrating, but I don't feel I have had any before. (Well perhaps with some Polish users, who disliked the use of "Stettin" as original capital of Swedish Pomerania.) I admit my reply become very long, yes. However it was ment to four separate persons, and I usually don't use dictionaries at talk-pages. In any such long text a key-slip or whatever may occur. I'm greatful for Your reluctance to block me. And I'm also glad for all help I ever been given here, including Yours. Boeing720 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparative Political Studies[4] is an acadmic journal that can be found at most Swedish university libraries. Those libraries are all open to the public, so go look it up yourself.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer, there is a such library in Lund (I've been there several times, a rather long time ago though). Boeing720 (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Scania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rutger Maclean. 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) 09:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yepp.

Precis så som du sa på Peters talk. Hafspajen (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Eftersom du skriver på svenska, och efter en snabkoll på Din imponerande sida, drar jag slutsatsen att Du håller med mig gällande SwWiki, och kanske t.o.m. om en viss grupp kring en viss administratör där ? Har jag dragit rätt slutsats , glädjer det mig oerhört. Tack hur som hellst" - means something like

Since You wright in Swedish, and after a quick look at Your impressive page, I conclude You agree with me about SwWiki, and perhaps even about a certain section around a certain administrator there [not at EnWiki] ? If my assumption is correct , then I'm very glad [to find out that I'm not alone to think so]. Anyway thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2014 (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 History of Scania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dannebrog and Dalby. 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) 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scania 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:

• towns Helsingborg and [[Landskrona]]. Aswell as parts of the Scanian south and south-east coast. (Where the cliffs aren't steep enough, they may become become overgrown with grass.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Localizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flight director. 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) 13:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Localizer 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:

• [Fil

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:1960 to 1990 Cockpit ILS instrumentation.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:1960 to 1990 Cockpit ILS instrumentation.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this very detailed input, it's much appriciated. Thanks. Problem (as of now) is that I've got the permission by its author , George Carty through the only channel he accepts, the forum at SIMVIATION/HJG

http://tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/7301/screenshot-use-wikipedia?page=1&scrollTo=50536

But isn't sufficient as proof, according to "Green Gigant" at Wikimedia Commons. Mr George Carty will not reveal his e-mail address, and I my self feel should feel very uncomfortable to ask not only an e-mail from him to Commons, but also to read a lot of stuff at Wikimedia Commons. I find it sad, but I will not trouble George Carty again, with the same question. However I thank You, for Your detailed input. Thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, in order to see my request to use the image, You must scroll up, to the top. Boeing720 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Windows 10. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This cricicism is everywhere "in the air" among PC users. Please compare with when Windows 95 was released. At 12pm exactly people stormed electronical stores to upgrade their computer to W95. All such excitement are gone. The criticism part can be seen as making the article more NPOV, as of now it could well be written by Microsoft themselves. Things that are well known needs no sources. Boeing720 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No. That's not how Wikipedia works. Everything needs to be verifiable and attributed to reliable publications, plus you cannot come up with your own interpretations of sources that come to your own conclusion (that's what the "original research" complaint is about). Your "contribution" only pushes an argument that we should all be using Windows 95 OSR17 because Windows NT must not exist. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think You have to study OR matters in detail. Does "Paris is the capital of France" need any source, for instance ? I think the entire article about things which doesn't exist yet are POV, POV-ish or push POV. It's only Microsoft that really knows, and by follow their "leaks" (directly or indirectly) , then we (Wikipedia) are beginning to advertice for future commercial products. You should really keep the amount of leaks to a minimum. Please study reliable sources. Boeing720 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, an other good reason for limit the text size (especially on new features) is ,Microsoft has in the past announced upcomming features, such as "Window File System" which should be someting beyond NTFS. But as XP was released, they stated "it will come later". But it never has... There are other such examples aswell. Boeing720 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Boeing, you absolutely cannot add your opinion, or your conclusions from primary sources, or things that are "in the air", to articles. We don't all breathe the same air. Your edit in question is nothing like "Paris is the capital of France". I thought you and I and especially User:Peter Isotalo went through all that before, with regard to the Scania-related articles. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
• I agree with Bishonen. You're editorializing again. That's not how you improve Wikipedia. Peter ^Isotalo 19:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Windows 10 is about a future operative system. But the article is (almost) written as it was for sale today and had been tested by experts (= sources)! But it isn't. I have most certainly NOT contributed with any own opinions in the article. But by experience (if f.i reading Swedish "Datormagazin" monthly) we know that promesis/rumours about upcomming features in next Windows version never is entirely fulfilled. This is well known for all who reads high level computor magazines. The reason for my contribution was that the article clearly isn't NPOV, in the way that usually is called POV-push. As an example article states "Windows 10's user interface is designed to tailor itself to the type of device and available inputs, providing the right experience on the right device at the right time." lackes sourcing. If following the paragraph source, the best I got was this (http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/30/6873963/windows-10-continuum-touch-interface )

.

"During its big unveiling of the new Windows 10 operating system, Microsoft demonstrated a feature called Continuum, which is designed to make it easy for users to switch between touch interfaces and non-touch environments. One of the biggest criticisms of Windows 8 was that it was difficult for users of mice and keyboards to navigate the interfaces designed for touch, and touchscreen users had trouble navigating the traditional desktop that works so well with a mouse and keyboard." Not quite what's written in the article, is it !? The fancy words "taling itself" is far too much and clearly POV-push compared to "makes it easy" (Where "easy" is subjective unlike "tailing itself"). Etc. There are dozens of other statements that could be questioned aswell. I would never had made my contribution, if it wasn't for the already present POV-push and MS advetrtice. I don't think we (Wikipedia) should advertise for upcomming MS-products. First after it's release we will actually now what's true or not.

.

And please let me remind You all- Even the greatest OS release through Microsoft history was largely a fake. When Windows 95 was released, they stated "no more MS-DOS" - however if one only changed the BootGUI option in MSDOS.SYS file to zero, the PC booted to real mode (MS-DOS). And infact also when running the multitasking Windows 95/98/SE, calls from the Windows-loop to real mode was made continuously, otherwise it wouldn't have worked. I.o.w. the actual operative system of Windows95, 98, 98SE - and (better hidden, but still) in Win ME, was MS-DOS 7 or 7.1! Whithout MS-DOS 7 and 7.1 the Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME couldn't work. However "DOS 7 & 7.1" can very easilly be picked out and be used alone. The same was (and still is) possible if removing the entire Windows directory, DOS will still boot (provided BootGUI in MSDOS.SYS was set to zero). Windows NT was the first Microsoft OS that wasn't just a shell and which wasn't based on DOS. But not until the release of XP, 6 years later - including the 95 OSR2, 98, 98SE and ME releases, did Microsoft made it publically available. Dispite of their bold promesis in 1995. Remember when Bill Gates stated "No one will ever need more than one Megabyte of memory" ? So, just taking Microsoft statements for face value isn't the optimal way of improving Wikipedia either.

Boeing720 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Boeing720 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Perhaps you could try to remove or rephrase promotional fluff and peacock words, rather than add your own unsourced criticism? It's a better approach, and you would really be improving the article. In case you'd like to try, note that it can be tricky, so if you haven't had much practice with it, please do it rather conservatively, a bit at a time, and with very clear, explanatory edit summaries. Bishonen | talk 00:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC).

Hi and thanks Bishonen! Of cource, in retrospect, I should have done as You now say. I will try to "attack" the problem very diffrently. I think I must admit to been lazy concidering this article. You are absolutely right in what You tell me. Thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is in line with WP:CRYSTAL (emphasis/footnotes mine), which states that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred [Windows is a notable piece of software] It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. [I'm on the fence about WinBeta] It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. [This means you.] Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view" ViperSnake151  Talk  04:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boeing, it's troublesome that you are choosing to defend your unsourced contributions rather than simply following basic policies and guidelines. Bishonen and I had extended discussions with you regarding Scanian history (#Scanian issues, #Tendentious editing, #Last warning, #Klågerup, #Moved from User talk:Bishonen), and there are several threads with similar concerns on this very talkapage (#July 2013, #Nazism and editing practice, #Recent edits, #March 2014, #re: Landskrona BoIS, #No original research, #Admin help requested for your behavior at Landskrona BoIS).

Disagreements happen all the time, but you seem to be stuck on the idea that you can simply explain your way out of following WP:RS, WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL and the likes. If you are not able of following those guidelines, you might want to limit edits that substantially change the content of articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I have simply used what the source actually states (instead of POV-push), changed one tence ("was" to "is", grammatical) and removed unencyklopedical gossip. And I have used the talk-page, where this matter belongs. Boeing720 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Scania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Copenhagen. 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) 08:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

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.

HH Ferry route

added a link pointing to Car ferry

Landskrona BoIS

added a link pointing to Jörgen Pettersson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HH Ferry route, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hansa, SJ and NSB. 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) 09:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Scania and Danish-Scanian-Swedish relations on Wikipedia

Sorry for my very late reply. I have mostly given up on editing stuff on wikipedia, particularly in relation to Skåneland. I have noted that swedish editors show a tendency of neo-imperialism and consequently remove anything not entirely pro-swedish, no matter the source. It is nearly impossible to battle these highly active swedish neo-imperialists. I have also noted that swedish and danish history writing is quite different. I will take a look at the Aarbok, but it is almost certainly a lost cause. At least for now. Swedes are very sensitive in regard to Skåneland. Dylansmrjones (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Better late than never. I'm glad to read what You are telling me. Just press on, if You have found sources. In my case I keep myself to pure Scanian stuff, but one must have (relevant) sources. Don't forget Wikipedia isn't the correct location for agitation, which I presume You're aware of. But our history has been twisted many ways, and especially some Stockholmers tend to reject sources of that quality which elsewhere is accepted. Danish and some Scanian sources are generally better, in my mind. I have mostly written about Scania and the history article. Skåneland equals Scania + Halland + Blekinge (and Bornholm perhaps). "Danish-Scanian-Swedish relations" is a bit "wide". Could You give some specific examples of troubles You have encountered in the Skåneland article (dispite of used good sources) ? Don't give up, but follow the five pillars of Wikipedia and look for sources also in litterature. The very least one can do is to point out the differencies in history wrighting etc, especially with contradicting sources of equal value. Boeing720 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

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.

HH Ferry route

added links pointing to LB and Frederik I

Øresund

added a link pointing to SCB

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 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, LB (car ferries)

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, LB (car ferries). 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 – HH Ferry route. 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 HH Ferry route – 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, 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) 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote in contest, a ferry route that has existed for hudereds of years presumably has have several operators. LB (car ferries) only partly is mentioned in HH Ferry route, it's own article focus on the fact that THEY challanged the only operator.

Compare to these articles Normandy landings, Invasion of Normandy, Operation Overlord - they most certainly overlaps each other, but essentially deals with similar but different events. No I see absolutly no reason to remove LB (Car ferries) due to the HH Ferry route even if some overlaping is unaviodable. And why the hurry ? Boeing720 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ILS. 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) 09:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

fixed - ILS

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S-train, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro. 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, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Italian Fascism article

Your statement "Little ideology behind its pompous leader. Little or only partly thought through. Was "eaten" by the nazists during WW2." indicates that you have serious problems with upholding WP:NPOV while editing the Italian Fascism article. This indicates to me WP:COMPETENCE given that you cannot restrain your disgust and contempt towards the topic when editing the article, we are supposed to base material on reliable sources and uphold a neutral point of view and not our opinions. Please attempt to uphold NPOV no matter how strongly you feel on the topic, if you are unable to do that and continue to breach WP:NPOV like you did there, then you are not competent to edit on that topic.--184.145.69.153 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I was concerned about edits you made to the article stating what you said above and reported this incident to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for review. User:Roscelese said they did not think those were good edits by you, but advised me to continue discussion and see if the matter can be resolved through discussion via Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Therefore I will attempt to do so.--184.145.69.153 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mr IP. Would You suggest that Italian Fascism didn't change in German direction after Mussolini joined Germany, at a point when French already were beaten ? The sentence was, of course, of figurative nature. And when Italy changed side, in September 1943, the Germans present in Italy slaughtered all Italian resistance with extreme efficiency and speed. At that time no constitutional changes had been made within the Italian state, hence the fascist got "eaten" by the nazists. Further the Italian secretary of State, Ciano was executed etc. About the ideology as fraud see "The concese Encyclopidia of World history" 1958, 1971 and 1994, edited by John Bowle Chapter 20, part V, page 485 by John P. Plamenatz, M.A. at Oxford (from close to the bottom of left column)

• "Nazism exploited Socialist sentiments without being genuinely Socialist; it rejected individualism and responsible government , not only in practice, as the Communists did, but also in theory. In whatever it shared with Fascism, it was the more immoderate and reckless, especially against Communism. [however not between 23.August 1939 and 22.June 1941, my comment] It differed from Fascism in its furious hatred of the Jew and the Slav and its faith in racial superiority, and also in the intensity of its contempt for the Christian virtue of charity. In Fascism there was a larger degree of fraud, in Nazism a much larger element of fanaticism." and later in right column

• "Germany went from strength to strength, and France gradually lost confidence of herself. Mussolini, mortally offended by the by the British and French attempt to stop him conquering Abyssinia [neither the French nor the British could be concidered having the moral high ground regarding Africa (!?), my comment], eventually became Hitler's ally."

Yours sincerely John Pontus Eriksson Landskrona, Scania, Sweden phone your int code + 46 418 301 114 Boeing720 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Several points in response: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.69.153 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• First, is that the best quality of source available for the topic at hand? Also for the material after that unless you have a source saying that they were "eaten", etc, that is your own WP:Original Research, and regardless it appears extremely biased-sounding.

• Second, I never said that Italian Fascism didn't change when German forces arrived in Italy in 1943. I agree that by all reliable accounts the Italian Social Republic was a puppet state of Nazi Germany. I suggest saying instead of what you wrote, the following: "From 1943 to 1945, German military authorities permitted Benito Mussolini and the Republican Fascist Party to govern the Italian Social Republic, a puppet state of Nazi Germany.

• Third, there is no broad agreement by scholars that it was a fraud. That is one interpretation among many. The interpretations by scholars Stanley Payne, Roger Griffin, and others say completely otherwise, that fascism was the result of a rising radical nationalist current throughout Europe. One that had already begun to bud with national syndicalism originating in France from Charles Maurras and Georges Sorel fusing their views together. So if we are going to acknowledge the fraud claim, we have to acknowledge the claims by those like Payne and Griffin who claim it was a real ideology.--184.145.69.153 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

First I think You should have made a new headline, and use an alias. Especially since You have brought this up to administrator. Yet You appear to be familiar with Wikipedia. Between the wars there surely was "a rising radical nationalist current through many Eurpean nations" , but how this was expressed in various nations where these forces won, differed. And this was also the case in time and reason behind. Whithin the former Entente, France went to the left (between Clemenceau and Léon Blum the gap was wide, Blum won the 1936 French election and wanted to join the republicans in Spain. I'm less sure of Daladier though) But Italy, who also were "on the winning side", the Italian Fascism clearly was an example of a nation where the forces You mention won. And early. Hitler gained from the Wall Street chrach in October 1929, which affected German economy hugely. And only 4-5 years earlier had an other financial crisis affected the Weimar Republic. Sadly and suddenly the nazists went from 5 MP's to 230 (in 1930 election, I believe) - and soon came into power. But there were anti-democratical far righ winners also in Poland (by a coup in 1926), Austria, Finland (where "reds" were executed in large numbers after the civil war; although it remained a democracy). And finally there was Spain but also Hungary. YES! (In Yugoslavia a coup 1941 went in opposite direction however, something wcich made Hitler crazy) But the right wing movements in the other nations, except Germany, were of a different kind. Here Michael Burleigh in "The racial state" (1991 and later works) has made a major contribution. Largely, even if antisemitism had flourished (and still does) throughout Europe since Constantin, the idea of an aryan blood as common denominator was unique for Nazism. I don't think we stand that far from each other. But I find it essential to distinguish , not Italian Fascism (as its original ideology) from other far right winged nations, but Nazism from all other's. For instance did Finland also join Hitler's war but the Finnish were never compared to the Nazists. It was the same with the Italians. With exception of Mussolini himself, after he somehow was helped from his prison, and eventually he became a personal fried to Hitler. That we know wasn't the case from the beginning, Galeazzo Ciano's diary is frequently mentioned in William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Boeing720 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to post an indepth explanation here but it was blocked from going through due to some ridiculous auto-analysis repeatedly regarding it as "inappropriate" - I did not say any profanities or anything and thus I have reported that false positive. I will not re-write all that I attempted to post because it will probably be rejected again. All I will say is that I left Wikipedia due to health problems that caused me to become highly uncivil to several users and after discussing the matter with an administrator I left Wikipedia only returning sporadically. I have since apologized to those users for my behaviour caused by that health condition, but am reluctant to return full-time to Wikipedia.--70.55.10.162 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear that. You haven't been uncivil to me, but the admin request got very fast. The Italian Fascism isn't my best cup of tea anyway. For the time being, will I leave that article behind me. I was infact lazy with the inlineing of sources, especially the French TV-documentary was used in several statement, but I only inlined the source once. And perhaps TV documentaries isn't the best of sources either. But I have recorded it, and watched certain parts very thoroughly and used pen and paper. I presume You, like I have dynamic IP and is the same as 184.145.69.153.

I have also noticed that it's much easier to get angry in wrighting. I hope You recover from Your illness, and that You by time will return. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not having a full outlook on fascism - especially in the original Italian variant, it took me years of personal research of scholarly sources to get a sense of what it is about. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Italian Fascism was grounded in very deep political, psychological, and economic philosophical stances; it had many facets and conditions to each of its views - it sought to be a synthesis of all virile components of existing political outlooks combined with new ones while rejecting what it deemed the non-virile components of political outlooks. However it was impossible for Mussolini and other Fascist leadership figures like Balbo, Starace, and Ciano, amongst others to illustrate this in short political speeches that were time-constrained. In books the full deep complexity of the ideology is revealed. It is fair for claims of opportunism by Mussolini, however Mussolini didn't deny it - he turned such pejorative accusations of that into a positive statement - he was opportunistic because virile ideologies and philosophies must not be dogmatic and rigid or else they become outdated and irrelevent; but rather they must adapt to the conditions of the time they operate in in order to operate well - he viewed an ideology like a machine - an entity designed to perform a function - if the ideology doesn't operate well it must be fixed or else it must be discarded if it cannot be fixed. --70.55.10.162 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks "IP"! We have only been discussing Italian Fascism. To my knowlidge only Franco in Spain is the only other leader who has been an outspoken Fascist (he declared this in an early phase of the civil war). But lets stick to Italy. There are most certainly plenty of misconceptions on Italian Fascism, agreee fully. One essential misconception which has been spread is the Communist parlance which uses "fascism" also for "nazism". Especially due to issues like the Holocaust, Hitler's ideas of the "aryan race" as superior of others and the careless aggresion on Poland (a nation which had disappeared from the maps of Europe for more than a Century, but which after 1926 to a certain degree resembled Italy). Italy's territorial claims were far more modest and didn't include ethnic cleansing.

About other fascist Italian leaders, have I almost only read about Ciano, the Secretary of foregin affairs who was married to Mussolini's daughter. Initially it was he who "mended" the diplomatic relations between the two dictatorships after the Austrian "Anschluss" to Germany [Ciano's role here is clearly stated in the French TV-documentary "Mussolini-Hitler", but also that he soon regretted it], later he strongly regretted this, while Mussolini got more and more impressed by the German strength [What the German Empire had attempted to accomplish during more than four years in WW1, was actually accomplished in the first five days of the western offensive in 1940 (William L Shirer, and other's which describes the offensive in details), by the evening of 15.May 1940 had the German panzer troups forced the Ardennes and theirby cut of BEF and almost all French mobile forces who had "grasped" the German lerger strategy (initially invented by Erich von Manstein).] When Mussolini (and the World) realized this some week afterwards, he suddenly saw the French defeat as a great possibility - and joined Hitler's war, believing it was safe. But before May 1940 was war yet again within Europe not Mussolini's cup of tea. Both in the case of Czeckoslovakia and infact also after the German invation of Poland, he attempted to make peace.

Mussolini is presumably more complex to undertand and explain (amongst other things, he began as a socialist before the World War), compared to Hitler. Of cource the Italian Fascism indeed was a kind of ideology, in which Your knowlidge appear to be very high. But the difference between for instance legislation and the execution of the same, oftenly was weak or differed (both consciously and not). An example was the 1938 antisemitic laws in Italy, they satisfied Hitler and was a part of the "Rome - Berlin axis", but were never executed in reality.

The Great Fascist Council was officially the highest organ within the party, and I think this was proven when Grandi challanged Mussolini by the end of July 1943, although Grandi himself didn't succeed him; the new leader became Badaglio. And Sforza was the head of the council.

Regarding Italian Fascism in general, I trust Your interesting comments. But with the addition of, in comparacy with nazism and communism, it was "more talk than action" (but of cource not "fraud" only). I can though understand Your criticism, if digging a bit deeper (as You indeed have done). But still more of a fraud than what communism (including Stalinism) and Nazism was. Or opportunistic, as You put it. I mean if it had not been for the WW2, some 40 more years of Italian Fascim would essentially resembled Franco's Spain, I believe.

My own interest in this topic is mainly the similarities and differencies between nazism and fascism in general. And here lots of confusion sadly exists here and there in Wikipedia. To be absolutly clear, in my mind Fascism was unpleasant, far right, anti-democratical etc. However not down to the rabid madness of German nazism. Boeing720 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boeing720. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 04:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Renaissance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genua. 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) 08:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of buildings in and around Copenhagen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages H.C. Andersen and Vesterbro. 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, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pickles. 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) 08:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter Mærsk-Møller

Hello, Boeing720. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Peter Mærsk-Møller, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a comment on Fisheriesmgmt's talk page here. I notice that the article has been edited since my post (I have not read the new version), meaning that some of the things I comment on may not be relevant anymore. Regards, 62.107.213.20 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Content based on personal experiences

I urge you not to make more edits like this.[5] We have discussed at length in #Last warning (and other threads) why you can't add content based on what you yourself believe is true. This is simply not how Wikipedia works, as is specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Questioning a central aspect of basic Wikipedia policy is not going to get you anywhere.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You also can't use one Wikipedia article as a reference to another Wikipedia article.[6]

Peter ^Isotalo 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saskia Reeves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Commander. 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) 09:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

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.

List of Danish Provinces

added links pointing to Greve, Viborg, Assens, Skive, Stevns, Billund and Struer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Västerås, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Västerås SK. 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, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Talkback

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

Swedish museums

I thought you might want to know that there are other aviation museums in Sweden. There's Arlanda flygsamlingar which is based on what used to be Luft- och rymdfartsmuseet run by LFV. And there's the Swedish Air Force Museum. I'm sure you can find secondary sources for the Vasterås museum, but it's not that unique.

And please stop referring to me as a "stalker".[7][8][9] You frequently edit topics I've been involved with for years and you've contacted me on several occasions about edits that I have subsequently deemed problematic. I have good reasons to check on your recent contributions from time to time.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You, Peter. I have never searched for any arguments with You. But why You for instance - after six months - suddenly wanted the diploma erasaed, goes beyond my comprahention. I clearly, and from the beginning, wrote that it had nothing to do with certificates.

And suddenly Wikimedia Commons are questioning very old photos, as well. One of them an oil painting by Martin Emond, which I have inherited from my mother's mother! It's mine, hanging on my wall. (And used in the Martin Emond article at Swedish Wiki.)

I honnestly believe You are a good contributer to this Wikipedia. But it appears to me You never ever let anything go, how tiny the matter is about. And You appear at times to think too low on Your fellow contributors. I no longer take that personally.

Having said that, "har jag erhållit både intern och vanlig mejl från andra användare (som jag hoppas inte begriper detta). Det var rekommendationer om att titta "här och där" och ge ev. kommentarer. Först följde jag brevförslagen, vilket kanske förklarar ett par av mina kommentarer. Men när jag insåg att du var den minsta gemensamma nämnaren, så har jag inte följt fler dylika tips. Det handlar uppenbarligen bara om nån slags fiende som vill splittra - eller bara roa sig på andras bekostnad. Måhända detta är en del av förklaringen även till några av dina ageranden mot mig (och wienerbrödsdebatten), som råd, låt Dig inte retas upp. Det är lätt hänt i text, enligt mina erfarenheter. Men jag kan försäkra Dig om att jag inte tillfullo insåg vad det egentligen gick ut på. Och att jag tar 100% avstånd från den slags agerande bakom ryggen på folk. Jag har inte följt dessa råd efter insikten" I'm truely sorry that I didn't fully understand these matters initially.

I will change some of the text at my personal page, but I hope we - from now on - can be polite to each other and avoid disturbing each other, including indirect paths. Does this sound OK to You ? Boeing720 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

PS there is a "Draken" simulator at Ängelholms Fligh museum (and one of Enoch Thulin's dubble deckers is hanging in the ceiling at Landskrona Town museum, my grandfasther watched his crash, by the way) but I'm not interested in the smaller (and military) aircraft.

The image issue was another example of our paths crossing by chance. URL Article 9 has been a concern of mine before. And whether you see it as trivial or not, it simply wasn't a valid rationale for a free license. Trust me on this: I work with gov't bureaucracy and administrative legislation (förvaltningslagstiftning) for a living.

Vad gäller mejlandet, tack för att du informerar om det öppet. Jag uppskattar ärligheten.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"När jag väl begrep det hela var jag på väg att nämna det för dig, men så kom skit emellan."

By the way, I read somewhere that the first ever copyright law in Sweden came in 1960 (?), if that is correct, must a painting sold by its artist before 1960 be free to spread photographs of ? (I'm talking of original paintings only, like a signed oil or aquarelle).

This is of no matter for me at this Wikipedia, and I don't care much for the Swedish one. But the question as such still is of interest to me. So, if possible, I also wonder if I want to buy lets say another oil painting, directly from the artist. Can I then say "OK I pay the 3500 SEK You want, but only provided that the copyright entirely follows with it (and have that in wrighting) ? If You know the answers (or parts of them) without too much trouble for Yourself, it would indeed be very kind of You. Boeing720 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Sweden had some form of copyright legislation before 1960, but the current one was enacted in that year. It's completely retroactive when it comes to paintings as far as I know.

Copyright can be bought and sold, either in full or for specific purposes. For example, Michael Jackson acquired the rights to a whole bunch of Beatles songs (see details in Michael Jackson#1984–85: Pepsi, "We Are the World", and business career, fifth paragraph). So if you buy a physical artwork from the person who made the artwork you can acquire the copyright to it as well. But like you say, it has to be put into writing so you can prove copyright ownership if there is ever a dispute.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Emond

Regarding the copyright notices you mentioned above, File:MartinEmond 3.JPG and File:MartinEmond MalmöStadsteater.JPG look like copyright violations. Unless you can produce permission from the copyright owner(s) of these paintings, you're better off marking them for deletion yourself. It doesn't matter who owns the physical artworks. If the current owners of the copyright to the works haven't given permission, they have to go.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Am I incorrect regarding the time for the very first Swedish law on copyright matters was 1960 ? IF so, and the law first began to apply in 1960, atleast objects purchased before that time ought to be free of copyright ? (I'm aware this question may be difficult, and perhaps never has been brought to court.) Boeing720 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are incorrect about that. The law applies to copyright before 1960 and it doesn't matter when the object was purchased.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. This has (no longer) anything to do with Wikipedia or -media, and please do not missunderstand me, this is of personal interest. But please read this https://auctionet.com/sv/help/11-droit_de_suite - surely no law can be retroactive ? It's this webbpage (which ought to be 100% certain) from where I got the year 1960. And there are around 50/50 of the oil paintings and aquarelles which lackes this fee and "följdrätt". Boeing720 (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Purchase dates have absolutely nothing to do with copyright terms. The relevant exceptions for copyright in Sweden are listed here. They are easy to follow and perfectly accurate. If you think you've found a loophole, consult a lawyer who specializes in copyright law before trying it out. Otherwise, I strongly recommend that you don't try to make any personal interpretations. You're grasping at straws here so just let it go.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have now found out Martin Emond made the painting in question in 1947 (qlearly shown by the author at its back side) - Take a deep breath , and think - the time of the selling was thirteen years PRIOR to the first EVER Swedish Copyright law ever ! So Peter , please explain how the Copy right law possibly could apply NOW ! Swdish Laws hasn't been retroactive in Sweden. Boeing720 (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Västerås, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallell. 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) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC) this ought to have been fixed, including correct spelling, by now Boeing720 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Circle of latitude, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercator. 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) 09:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Björn Hlynur Haraldsson

The article Björn Hlynur Haraldsson has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Björn Hlynur Haraldsson

Sorry but we don't use IMDB as a ref but as a el. Wgolf (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Björn Hlynur Haraldsson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Is In The Air. 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) 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you've received repeated talk page notices to discuss before making changes in Nazi-related articles

Please discuss your recent edits to the article Adolf Hitler on the article talk page, and be prepared to cite sources here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please also do not edit war any further. Edit warring against consensus in a high profile article is really rude to other editors, and isn't a good idea generally. Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made one change, after that have I used the talk-page. Do not confuse discussion with warring, please. Boeing720 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:A jet airliner approaching Copenhagen rwy 04R (and 04L), the PAPIs are different due to different distance.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:A jet airliner approaching Copenhagen rwy 04R (and 04L), the PAPIs are different due to different distance.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for Your information. Sorry if I have done something wrong here. I strongly doubt there is a PD image which shows two PAPI beacons - which have different light indication. The runways must be parallel but of different "lateral position" - it's longer remaining distance to the right runway. Hence the angle towards the runway and pilot eyes becomes different - and as these PAPI beacons works like sector lighthouses, but vertical, in this case the pilot sees four white lights of the left (closer) runway, but two white and two red lights is seen by the pilots by the right (more remote) runway. Perhaps more importaintly for You is that I just wanted to show this picture a brief while, in order to explain what I ment. It's at Talk:Approach lighting system only, and it can be removed just in a couple of days. There is no call for this perticulary image elsewise, in my mind and to my knowledge. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please just give the other contributer a chance to see the image, he hasn't made any reply yet. Boeing720 (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A reminder

Non-free images cannot be embedded into talk pages per WP:NFCC#9, which states that only articles may display non-free images. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well then I'm very sorry. But explain how use images to discuss matters if this is the case. Few readers have a look at the talk-pages. And frankly I don't understand how to disuss the article whithin the article, rather than at the talk-page. Could I move the picture (as thumb) to the article - and make my arguments in the image text or what ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You can link to images by putting a colon (:) at the beginning of their name, or linking to them like you do pages. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landskrona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nmi. 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) 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Janni Spies

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.

A tag has been placed on Janni Spies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Janni Spies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janni Spies 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/Janni Spies 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. reddogsix (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages

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:Libertarianism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. 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. - DVdm (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Special relativity for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The major part was actually about the "twin paradox". And I can't find Einstein's formula of addition of high speeds, I know for certain that it is included in the Special relativity. The last part was perhaps philsosofic, but there are infact quite a few phystcians who mean philofosy and physics goes together. Boeing720 (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roma Termini railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Lorenzo. 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) 08:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at T. E. Lawrence, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 00:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But of cource. If the entire lead had been well-sourcered had I not forgotten. It appears to me that some articles don't use inline references in the lead of longer articles, while others do. Now is my contribution inline referenced atleast. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gasolin', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DR. 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) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Gold

Hi you added a comment to the gold article. If you look in the first line sentence of litre L and l are SI abreviations. The secoond point is fmol it means femto mol. If necessary this might be possible to link to mol. Is this OK as explaination or is it needed to go into the articel?

Hi ! I think "fmol" may confuse more readers than me. As I pointed out, have I read chemistry and calculated with mole (or "mol") - although a long time ago now. But I have never heared of any other mole unit, and I actually think it would be a benefit of the article if You could find some way to solve this problem. I'm not even sure of what the femto-prefix stands for. 10^−5 (doesn't add up) 10^-6 (does, but to me "femto" ought to include a five, I think) so 10^-15 or 10^-50 perhaps ? Of cource I could look it up, but the general question remains: how many of our readers do understand both "f=femto" in "fmol" and what femto equals ? I hope You can see my point.

A recalculation of the values in seawater to "mol/l" (or "mol/L") is a possibility. However if the "femto mol" unit is very commonly used in combination with either gold or "what's in the water?" - then it would be better to explain it briefly (and not just to me). But the "l" or "L" for litre is far less importaint, as I gather people understands both l and L. Boeing720 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

femto is 10^-15. I change it to femtomol which should be good enough for somebody knowing the mili mikro nano pico femto and ato scaleing parameter infront of a unit. If not a 10^-15 could be used instead but is this more transparent than the femto? 30 femtomol or 30 * 10^-15 or 3 * 10^-14. For a chemist 3 mmol/L of sodium in water is a good and easy value. To go to 69 mg/L in water is easier to put on a scale. --Stone (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If there's 69 mg og gold in each litre of water, I suppose the gold price soon would reach an all time low (: Boeing720 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (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 DR (broadcaster), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Killing. 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) 10:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Done ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forced assimilation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lorraine. 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) 10:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4