User talk:Lklundin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1

"Ferrari's solution in the special case of real coefficients"[edit]

I have answered at talk: Quartic function#Section "Ferrari's solution in the special case of real coefficients". D.Lazard (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sven Hassel may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"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:
  • film translator from [[Nørre Tranders]].<ref name=marriage>Garnisionskirken Parish Register]] (Marriage) 1946-1961, p.119</ref><ref>Mariakirken Parish Register]] (Marriage) 1944-1965, p.102</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not personalize the current MH17 article content dispute[edit]

You personalize the current content dispute with this edit summary. I did not start the current Talk section proposing that the article's bias be addressed, and I am not the only editor who thinks the article is biased. – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen I don't think that was intended in any way as a personal attack I think he was just acknowledging the specific edit just shrug it off man sometimes it is easy to take offense over something which was not intended in the way it seems to come off. You know, AGF...Wikidgood (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

MH 17 Preliminary report source(s) are wrong now[edit]

The previous edits (before mine) left a "tag error" in ref "dsb1". I just tried to fix it, in fact the mistake came before. Seems already has been fixed. Apologies.PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please do a bit of research on this point for us?[edit]

Hi. I have no problem with your editorial style and you are obviously well informed on many topics pertinent to this edit. Rather than put up a citation tag though I thought it would be more diplomatic to ask if you could please cite this interesting material. Thank you! CC: ArticleTalkPage Wikidgood (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a chance to respond to this important edit. The fact that Ukraine had a significant nuclear arsenal and that this arsenal was handed over to Russia on the mentioned conditions should be obvious from the two linked articles. What remains to be justified is that these two facts were indeed relevant to the already mentioned conflict between Ukraine and Russia and that this was 'most importantly' so. To this I can only say that I consider it self-evident that a significant nuclear power does not have its territory and sovereignty challenged, even by another nuclear power and that avoiding that Ukraine would become a nuclear power would self-evidently be more important to Russia than even a strategically important naval installation (especially since Russia has at least one significant albeit civilian port on its Black Sea coast). If this view is not generally accepted as self-evident then a 'citation needed' would seem justified. I will look for a relevant citation but cannot promise anything on the time to do so. Lklundin (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Russian sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Savoyard. 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) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valet de chambre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front. 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) 09:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sven Hassel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greve. 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) 09:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Autropatroller Permissions[edit]

I saw at the Page Curation talk that you were asking about obtaining Autopatroller rights on the English wiki.

If you are still interested, you can put in a request at WP:RFP/A to get the autopatrolled flag.

TheTito Discuss 07:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

PEGIDA[edit]

Hi, please be careful to avoid breaching WP:3RR at PEGIDA. No response is necessary to this message unless you have a query. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have imposed a 24 hour edit pause on that page for myself.
Query: The page currently states: "Point 5 demands a decrease in ratio of social worker to asylum seeker from currently 200:1". First of all this is nonsense, since there is clearly not 200 social workers per asylum seeker. Secondly, the cited PEGIDA program actually states: "PEGIDA ist FÜR eine Senkung des Betreuungsschlüssels für Asylsuchende (Anzahl Flüchtlinge je Sozialarbeiter/Betreuer - derzeit ca.200:1, faktisch keine Betreuung der teils traumatisierten Menschen)". This roughly translates to: "PEGIDA is FOR a reduction of the caseload regarding asylum seekers (number of refugees per social worker/care taker - currently ca. 200:1, really no care taking of partially traumatized humans)". As such something like this edit should be made ASAP. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colt Canada C7 rifle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

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.

1PN51 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Russian
1PN51-2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Russian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Undoing multiple edits from anon IP (who needs to do better), with very poor language and disruption of perfectly OK links (with a couple of my own edits as collateral damage).) (undo)[edit]

Your media does not write anything about this. is not it? can make better use of the page = discuss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation You need to understand a protest against annexation = zero. in Ukraine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.9 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Lklundin. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm X 02:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Little green men (2014 Crimean crisis)[edit]

Hi, Lklundin! On your page in the left column switch the language to russian, then appears: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B4%D0%B8 You will see in the title: "Вежливые люди". I'm a russian and know exactly what it is. In Ukrainian: зелені чоловічки. It's right. Regards,

- Yan
The confusion stems from the fact that the Russian page (incidentally the language spoken in the country from where the invasion force originates) together with the Belarusian page has a title that translates to 'Polite People', whereas the other languages have a page with a title that translates to 'Little green men'. If you edit the English page again, then please take care to distinguish the translation into Russian of the title and the alternative, English translation of the Russian term back into Russian.
Since you are Russian, perhaps you can help a bit with the corresponding Russian article ru:Вежливые люди. What really needs to be improved there is the chronology: First the unmarked soldiers were referred to as Little green men and only later where they referred to (in Russia) as Polite People. It would be good to clarify this also on the Russian page. Thanks for your interest, Lklundin (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"Polite men" (Вежливые люди) appeared only after Shoygu spoke of "black cats in dark room", as means of counterpropaganda ('men' I meant, not wise and polite 'cats'); trying to introduce this into rus. lang. art. — try, and You'll see how quickly this kind of change shall be reverted;
and do not, pls, replace references that are mainly in Estonian, with English ones (appears that not all, incl. admins, do not like this). —Pietadè (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Besides that, current linking of „Little green men“ (correct translation would be: зеленые человечки, зеленые людишки — carrying kind of pejorative meaning too (someone has deleted this from ENG vers)) with „Вежливые люди“ resembles to some extent a situation, where, say we have a article in xx-pedia titled “Peoples’ Liberation Army of Freedom” (in their language) and in enwiki the same subject is dealt with say in article “Ultra-terrorist group of mass murders” — should these 2 articles be linked or not? —Pietadè (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pietade: Do you realize that your frequent edits to et:Rohelised mehikesed do not give you ownership of that article? Your unexplained revert of the perfectly OK introduction of the Template:Cite news is not actually constructive. But do not worry, just explain your revert either here or on the article talk page, and I will leave it at that. Also, please do not interfere with my attempts at engaging in collaboration with other Wikipedians. Otherwise one could get the impression that you are WP:NOTTHERE. Your general comments regarding Little green men (2014 Crimean crisis) should probably be taken to the talk page there. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
One etwiki admin added there (Arutelu=Talk) a question: why it was necessary to replace "these external links" with "dragged" English templates; as she even complains on the occasion of adding simple expressions (like {{#expr:137/0.583 round 0}}) into text, and deletes them, deemed easier to revert, the more that this way they are more similar to other similar links in etwiki. As for templates: in etwiki the trend seems to be making them all in Estonian... And guidelines exist too: on making EST templates in Estonian language. —Pietadè (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pietade: Well, why don't you go ahead and show me and everyone else what those Estonian source templates look like? Introducing them on et:Rohelised mehikesed would provide you with some good faith. Lklundin (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC) PS. You are pretty close on my native language... :-)
As I started decades ago with computers' "mother language", that is English, and am not fond of translating (besides being lazy) everything possible into native languages (templates in Estonian can be found, if you type "mall:" (stands for 'template' in Estonian) you can see yourself; Viide e.g., stands for Reference); particularly "interesting" say if "northern tribes" insist on using "bench" southern tribes on the other hand insist on using "desk", etc., etc. not particularly productive activity, IMHO ;-) — Pietadè (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (11:30 PM local time.)
By the way 2: not very long time ago there was a agreement/requirement in etwiki, that all external links should be exclusively in Estonian, and linked only to articles/sources written in Estonian... ;-) —Pietadè (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pietade: You have utterly failed to justify your unsummarized revert of my edits to et:Rohelised mehikesed:
0) The disputed edits do not in any way change the actual sources being cited, so your comments about preference for native sources are irrelevant.
1) You claim to have decades' of experience with computers. With that you should see the value of quoting sources using structured templates instead of free format text. Yet, you reintroduced the free format representation.
enwiki templates are not one to one transferred to other languages, incl. etw.; I didn't reintroduce anything, simply trying these 100K+ articles to be not extremely different from each other in form (in local etwiki)
2) You argue above that on the Estonian pages special Estonian templates should be used. But the fact is that the very article under discussion already uses template:cite news and template:cite web which are both English.
This was reference to guides existing in etwiki, nothing to do with my person
3) To top it off, in your very own editing of the page you have inserted a source citation using template:cite web, for example here.
This kind of option (using ENG ver.) appeared only very recently, when one of etwiki admins coded this to possible to be used in etwiki.
4) Lastly, while very active here on my talk page, you have done nothing to follow your own suggestions for improving the article under discussion.
Yes, I created the page, and do deem, at least partly, responsible for keeping an eye on this
With that I really have to wonder what your editing motives are. At this point, I think your best option for redeeming yourself would be to revert your own revert. For bonus points, you can show me how to quote a source using an Estonian template. Lklundin (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply do not have time for this.
As regards Your last action, joining two refs with identical URLs — haven't you seen that some sources, e.g., Reuters and BBC, tend to present under the same URL different articles (e.g., see Reuters references in article Garissa University College); so, say at 12:00 under this url there is one article with one content, hours later content and title has changed, sometimes even author; this seems to be a wider problem (e.g., if you read at 12:00 that casualties were "XX", and refer to this "article" yet later, say at 18:00, casualties have risen to "XX+200", yet url and, sometimes the author, are identical, content on the other hand very much different; and how could you guess at some time that this vers, needs to be archived?)—Pietadè (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Summarizing: if I translate from Hebrew to some other language, I can write from left to right, if translating into Hebrew, this "trick" will not work; sometimes seems that you are trying to introduce "left to right" universally, no offence meant. ;-) —Pietadè (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You are making no sense at all. Just as one would expect, per et:Wikipedia:Viitamine#Korduvviited, two citations of the very same source can and should be done via the ref name construct. This is regardless of the revision history of the quoted source. If you need to quote previous revisions of a web source, you need to get an archived version, but that is clearly irrelevant to our discussion. Considering your edit count you should know better. And your attempts to gloss over your disingenuous arguments with irrelevant postscripts and smileys do not impress me. Shame on you. Lklundin (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)