User talk:Boeing720

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Scania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dannebrog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVG

Just making sure you saw the reply re: SVG on my talk page, I did not ping you. You can check out Commons:Help:SVG for math. Also, LibreOffice is good for making graphs and probably presentation-style SVGs. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was supposed to be Commons:Help:SVG for math. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no need for apologies. And all info on SVG are of interest to me now. And I did ask for "SVG and math curves". As I'm preparing to to move (in the physical sense), I have been a bit lazy over other things to do. I estimate my entire move, including some re-painting etc in the new flat, will take a few weeks. But I will study especially the math-SVG issue. And thanks again, DIYeditor ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited På spåret, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tintin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improving Tommy Engstrand article

I've worked a bit on your article Tommy Engstrand adding categories, linking it to he Swedish article and creating lead section. My suggestion for you is to add more info using SE article. Good luck with your edits! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, much appreciated ! Boeing720 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adobe Flash Player. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism ?. I did it in order to spread the news of its danger. Did you read

https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsa18-01.html

This is a very well spread software, which Adobe themselves acknowledges to be dangerous to have installed. Naturally not intended to be like that forever. But what the vandalism issue here, really is in this particular case is the Flash Player itself (until version 28.0.0.137). The warning is severe ! Boeing720 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This project's aim isn't to spread the news of danger.

And please do not copy and paste contents to Wikipedia from other source. This is a serious offense called copyright violation. Wikipedia only has a handful of serious rules, and you are breaking two of them. Please stop before losing your editing privileges.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have to ask: What went on in your brain that made you do that? Are you under the impression that people of the Earth are constantly watching Adobe Flash Player article and a warning issued there is seen by all?

You have been for six years and have 7,000 edits. Don't you know that the only possible reaction here to what you did, be it by me or anyone else, is a reversion?

—Codename Lisa (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia isn't about spreading news, so far so well. But the magnitude of this security matter is extreme. Have you heard about the "Wannacry-malware", which locks all photos, documents other files etc, and then blackmail the users - "pay us if you want to regain access to your files", up to society levels even. Large money has been payed ! As it now was stated on TV, the reason behind the possibility for this master blackmailing solely came down to the installation of Adobe Flash Player, I think it's not wrong to alert our readers about this. I most certainly did no harm, no vandalism or maliciousness to our community. No.

When people google "Adobe Flash Player" (which many well might, due to the news) our article Adobe Flash Player comes up early - hence I think (during a brief while) this was the best I possibly could do. We are obligated to enlighten our readers, are we not ? Not as common news, but still. Not to deal with this at all, is far worse, in my opinion. To answer your last question, I'm surprised of your reaction. I doubt you fully have understood the seriousness of having this software installed (until that version, prior to 5.February), it isn't a minor security issue - but presumably the worst ever of its kind (not counting "odd" and little spread software) - Adobe has otherwise a good rumor in the IT-world. If it were a minor issue or less known software, I wouldn't have bothered. And if I had done the same, but over a less spread or less dangerous security matter, then I could have understood your reaction. I'm not aware of what you may be aware of or not. But this is an unparalleled and extremely severe security problem that has been revealed. WP:Bold Boeing720 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I saw this edit be reverted - not because of watching your contribs, Boeing720, but because of watching the article. I thought at the time that perhaps worded and placed properly this could've been a legitimate addition to the article, but noted that it was indeed very strangely placed and in a peculiar style. Now to see that it was copy-and-pasted from another source is worrisome. I agree with Codename Lisa that for someone with 7000 edits the style and manner of edit are concerning. The exigency of something doesn't override Wikipedia rules. Think how many important things happen that people should probably know about. Have you ever seen an article modified in this manner to report current news of importance? For example, the hurricane article changed with a header "WARNING: A strong storm is heading toward Southern Florida! Take shelter." That's just not how things are done and I would think that is obvious. If it's an incredibly notable event, which most current events are not (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism), then it would belong down in the article where it would be placed in a logical fashion in an appropriate paragraph or subsection. For example "Security issues". Wanna-cry is horrible, do you want to spam warnings about it across the top of the Personal computer article? In this situation, good intents do not make up for a lack of adherence to the rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me add that this is not the "worst ever" security vulnerability. You have missed some news, about the Intel Management Engine, and Spectre and Meltdown - which you will find, despite being the worst ever, are still not plastered over the top of the Personal computer article - or even the speculative execution article. That Flash is a gaping security hole is frankly old news and for that reason it is typically disabled by default and requires user action to be run. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what my esteemed colleague said above, Wikipedia does have a facility for alterting people of important events: WP:MAIN.

Also, people who search for "Flash Player" to get won't need our warning becaues they receive a patched version anyway. (I tested.) It is those who have a previous version installed that need warning.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor - It has been stated at SVT news ("Rapport"), that it indeed was this software which made it possible to make the "Wannacry" blackmailing attack and other shit. Some Swedish authorities payed ("We needed to access our files", a bureau chief stated at the time and large money has gone to these blackmailers, presumably not just from Sweden) Also, it was very clearly suggested to uninstall it. This was also stated at SVT text-TV. Adobe acknowledges that their software indeed made/makes it possible for attackers to take control of the system through this software. (Independent of Windows, Linux !, Chrome or Mac)

Amongst the very well-spread software from well-known and well-reputed software manufacturers, this security vulnerability actually lacks parallels. Given all it's consequences it does. (Hardware is an other chapter and can't for instance be uninstalled) Naturally my edit was intended to later be re-written, and moved the history section or somewhere, rather soon. (But not so soon, as now happened) The examples given are hardware-related and couldn't be exploited for blackmail by others, not to my knowledge at least.

The analogy with "hurricane" would only be true if I had attempted to put this "NOTE" part in a general article such as "Software" or "Adobe". This article was specifically about the Adobe Flash Player, and nothing else. It's not seldom required in order to read certain documents, and a one usually is given an installation link. Everybody happy...

I am not certain whether we should make some kind of alerts for named hurricanes, I guess there's no need - as I think such news spreads very well through smartphones and media. In that way this is rather different matter. Also - if searching for downloading Flash, you're correct. But what I had in mind was people with this vulnerable (now "old") versions already installed, and who may have heard some rumor, google and relate on Wikipedia. Thinking - "no there is not a problem". So it's a bit of credibility related too. The formulation can be discussed, but "intentional vandalism" is a very way too far gone accusation.

Perhaps we should introduce a special "Alert"-template for brief usage, and in exceptional matters if it can be of help to our readers, only ? Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa - I did clearly write "up to version xxxx, an updated version will be come on 5.February", as of the Adobe source. I can well imagine there still are old a lot of old versions installed. I had it installed myself, but the mothercard or CPU gave up. Haven't had a reason to install it at this desktop yet. I also referred to "googling" and coming directly to our article. So WP:MAIN don't help all. Neither could my edit, but some, I hoped. Boeing720 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "hurricane" isn't a precise analog(y) but speculative execution as relates to Meltdown (security vulnerability) is. Note that the article first discusses speculative execution, then mentions that there are major security vulnerabilities with it. Even Intel Management Engine, which is almost entirely known because of the vulnerability, first discusses what the ME is. If Flash player were known only because of this vulnerability, then mentioning that near the beginning might be appropriate, not plastering this before the lead paragraph. For any article it is obvious that what Wikipedia does first is discuss what the topic is, then goes into details about it. A security vulnerability with a piece of software obviously belongs after an introduction to what the software is no matter how urgent or major the vulnerability is, and needs to be balanced in WP:DUE fashion with what the bulk of reporting on the topic over time has been.

By the way, yes, the hardware vulnerabilities can be exploited to blackmail others and are vastly more widespread in impact than what you are discussing yet still do not have NOTE at the beginning of them or related articles. WannaCry and Flash Player bugs can be avoided by routine security measures. That is why I find it a bit shocking that you think it is ok practice to run operating systems that are no longer supported with security updates - and you think two things that are easily mitigated by keeping up to date are important enough to violate basic Wikipedia design.

Like I said, some mention of such a widespread vulnerability may be appropriate for the Adobe Flash Player article but obviously not in the manner you did it, before even the lead. Do you have any question about that at this point? I am not trying to give you a hard time or pile on with Codename Lisa here, I just do not understand where you are coming from in these situations that you creatively WP:IAR to do something obviously contrary to the design of the project. Honestly, after several similar situations, it seems that you see the importance of things as relate to you personally magnified many times beyond how they relate to most people. In other words this is not the first time you have acted as if your take on things is a special exception. While good intents and exigency may be reason to ignore rules in some real life settings, this does not hold true on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing720's edit (diff) was misguided, but let's maintain sanity while noting that. The only fact worth mentioning about Adobe Flash Player is that it is an unmitigated security disaster and it should be uninstalled. The trick is to find an encyclopedic way to note that vital information for the benefit of readers. Johnuniq (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: It seems quite hyperbolic to say that is the only fact worth mentioning. In the lead it already appropriately mentions the ongoing security issues. As I said above, some mention of this latest vulnerability is appropriate, but at this point I think we are discussing issues best left to Talk:Adobe Flash Player rather than what relates to Boeing720's behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DIYeditor. My edit was perhaps not optimal, but the matter itself is of greater significance. People with older than yesterday versions may still be attacked. Boeing720 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean to agree with Johnuniq. I say Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on computer security. The only thing that matters is giving this new information WP:DUE weight in consideration of all the coverage of the topic of the Flash Player in reliable sources over the years and to remember Wikipedia is not news. And, again, this should be discussed on the Talk:Adobe Flash Player page, not here. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To @Johnuniq: also especially about the "Adobe Flash Player is that it is an unmitigated security disaster and it should be uninstalled" part. But "I think we are discussing issues best left to Talk:Adobe Flash Player... and "I say Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on computer security." - was what I agreed with, with you. (But I still think this is a software disaster of unprecedented magnitude, which I still (again) think called for an unprecedented WP:BOLD edit).

If you have a look at my personal side, my time will be limited for some weeks. And at a point there may well be no connection for me during a few days, I presume. Do not use Smartphones at all. Boeing720 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Talk:Megabyte as a forum

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Megabyte for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are 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. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christianization of Scandinavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Sorry for this. Fixed by other. Currently , I have too little time for Wiki. Until mid April. Estimated. Boeing720 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Södertörn

Stop changing correct and up to date info into obsoletet info. And Scb is the official authority in these matter, whatever you as a person think and prefer.Yger (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have to presume you already know very well, Södertörn is not fully surrounded by naturally created waters, and can hence not be regarded as a proper island. SCB deals with statistics, not geography. As Södertälje kanal is man-made, and from a global perspective Södertörn is a peninsula, not an island. Also - on geographical topics, a modern Encyclopedia (Nationalencyklopedin, from 2000) is a superior source when compared to a statistical institute on matters such as this one. Geographical definitions.

Perhaps this seems like a petty matter, but if we allow all areas divided by man-made channels to count as islands, then huge areas in Scandinavia as well as elsewhere in Europe also would be islands. For instance, just take the area south of the Göta kanal in Sweden.

I also must surmise that you as admin at Swedish Wiki know you should have posted this message at the talk-page of the article, not here. Boeing720 (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you beleive and think. SCB IS the authority who defines this.Yger (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have to agree with Boeing720 here. I don't know what the rules are on other Wikis, but this is the English Wikipedia and we take the rules about verification and reliable sources very seriously. One editor's opinion about a source doesn't count for very much. If you wish to claim Scb as a reliable source for this info, maybe consider using the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In the meantime stop edit-warring about it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Yger: SCB is a statistical bureau. Nothing more. In Sweden Lantmäteriet is responsible for geographical matters. SCB cannot make decisions of what is and was isn't an island, but just count the population and size etc. For such matters SCB is a safe source, but not on geographical natters. (Whilst the Nationalencyklopedin from 2000 is, even tough an author known to write about islands would be even better.)

Without full knowledge of our guidelines on the subject of isles/islands, it stands to reason that an island is fully created by nature. Södertörn undoubtedly is not, as Södertälje kanal is man-made. We do actually have an artificial islands article. Södertörn is a natural peninsula and (at best) an artificial island. But not a proper island.

Further, as we are obligated to use a global point of view in all articles, I really can't see how we can describe isles/islands like this ? Is Jutland an island due to the Kiel Canal ? I haven't examined all channels in Europe or elsewhere, but I'm pretty certain huge land-masses would be split up in "islands" if we follow your suggested path here, Yger. Not just a the most parts of Götaland and Jutland but elsewhere also. Isn't there a man-made waterway between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River ? If so, then around quarter of the 48 continental states in the US would be an island as well. Our scope goes far beyond a statistical bureau in a single country. Boeing720 (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Old Style and New Style dates, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Your addition is not an improvement. In fact. it is almost incomprehensible. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to discuss contested edits on the article's talkpage rather than restoring them as you did. Meters (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: To the core - was year 1900 a leap year or not ? I say 1900 was not a leap year, meaning it was never even in any way intended to be a leap year (already from the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar - and hence "skipped leap day" becomes very confusing for a non-leap year). Our article Gregorian Calendar covers this matter excellently. About on what date a tax year begins wasn't something I considered, and seems secondary to me. How many days that differ between Gregorian and Julian Calendar is of larger significance, and over long time they are exceeding. But not by newer decisions, solely due to the Gregorian Calendar and nothing else. (Over millions of years neither the Gregorian Calendar is exact) Boeing720 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits about Julian ang Gregorian leap years are completely wrong, hence reverted. In the Julian calendar, every century year is leap, because 100 is divisible by 4. So 1900 is a leap Julian year. 1898 and 1902 are not leap years. In the Gregorian calendar, century years are not leap unless they are divisible by 400. So 1700, 1800, 1900 are not leap years; 1600 and 2000 are leap. Today the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars is 13 days. Burzuchius (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Dave Clark Five, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Get Together (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Contribution was reverted. Boeing720 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Was solved by other contributor. Boeing720 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

You were confusing an unsigned IP comment [1] with mine [2]. Correct your answers please. [3]. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this nonsense. You even wrote a reply inside my reply. I have no answer to correct. Boeing720 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. Are you stating that this [4] commentary is mine or you are still confused? GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. The link doesn't work. Boeing720 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It works just fine [5]. I'm politely asking you to please redirect, remove or strike out your hostile comments directed to me in response to the feedback of an IP and perhaps correct your malicious remark here [6] Apologies would also be helpful but not necessary. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply in 5 points at [7] Boeing720 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Boeing720. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Boeing720! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:37, Saturday, November 24, 2018 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

God Jul

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Boeing720, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Dan Koehl (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DR3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Sails (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed by someone else. Boeing720 (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Boeing720!

Happy New Year!

Boeing720,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—DIYeditor (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank You - very appreciated ! And the same to you ! Happy New Year ! Boeing720 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malmö, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedbank Arena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scania input

Your input was OK for farther down in the article. The biggest problem, as per my edit summary, was that you left the word "Many" (+ 2 refs) in there without the rest of that sentence. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benjamin Twos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HCP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC) fixed. Now HCP is linked to Honor point count. Strange though, in some other languages "hp" or "HP" is used, meaning Honour(cards) Points. Here I've learned to use "HCP", (High Card Points), but we have no such article. Honor point count only. I'm not suggesting any specific abbreviation, just that we have one. And it's simple enough also to non Bridge players, Ace 4 points, King 3, Queen 2 and Jack/Valet 1. Boeing720 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of AC-DC (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AC-DC (song) 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/AC-DC (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skåneland

Skåneland, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --MrClog (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of encyclopedias by date, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brockhaus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You asked about "had had" before and that is definitely correct. "That that" is also correct except it would be pronounced "that thət" at least in American English? Not positive about all cases but I think you pronounce that slightly differently in the two different uses. "You knew that thət ball was going to bounce." Actually I think people vary it so it might be "thət that" with the same meaning. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'Old stuff'

Well, es ist alles schon längst vorbei.
Suggested reading (if you haven't already): Günter Grass's Danzig trilogy. – Sca (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm aware of Günther, but haven#t read him. Have read several Hans Helmut Kirst post-war novels though. Boeing720 (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Eighteenth Angel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etruscan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Taggart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DR

The Adventures of Alix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tintin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quantum computing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cashless society, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SEK and Swish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy halloween

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Boeing720:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– —DIYeditor (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Dear me ! Help ! Nice to hear from you, DIY! Boeing720 (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wussup bro? Hope your move went well. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Greta Thunberg. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please EXPLAIN yourself ! I don't get it ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This commentary [8] is unacceptable on a talkpage. Don't make such observations about living individuals - you've been around long enough to know that. Do I need to warn you about discretionary sanctions on BLPs? Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing720: I recall there being several incidents in the past where people have advised that personal thoughts should not be added to talk pages at Wikipedia. Repeating something like the above diff will result in a block. Use another website to reveal your thoughts about living people. I will add a discretionary sanctions alert so you are officially notified of the need to follow WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About a photo ? Pointing out that Svante Thunberg uses his little girl who suffers from Aspbergers (so she even says herself on national TV) is just what was discussed the other evening at Danish DR2 deep news Deadline. What "several incidents are you referring to" , Johnuniq ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned. Any further egregious violations of BLP policy will result in a block. Please study the policy and follow it carefully. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your disparaging comments were sanctionable. Now that you know that, I'm sure you won't do that again. Acroterion (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Right after being warned repeatedly, you again violated BLP policy by calling a living person a "very dangerous man". This type of behavior is not permitted on Wikipedia. After your block expires, you must abandon this type of attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the block - you'd been clearly warned by three administrators. Recurrence of this behavior will result in a topic ban, an extended block, or both. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boeing720 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I simply REPLIED - and I wrote TO YOU at at talk-page. I've read the BLP , and I haven't violated it more than you asked me of to do !!!! I wrot WHAT I HONESTLY BELIEVE to you, and not that he is a dangerous man, only that I think so. It's an opinion you asked me of !!! WHY ELSE WRITE "LET's DISCUSS" ALL THE TIME ???????????????????????????????????? Boeing720 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are welcome to your opinion, but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia's content. Your attacks on others are therefore not welcome here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I just reviewed the block and the behavior that led to it, and I endorse the block. I join in urging Boeing720 to start following our WP:BLP policy. Our BLP policy applies to all pages, including talk pages and noticeboards. If Boeing720 violates our BLP policy again, I doubt that the block will be so short. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Boeing720. Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 21:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are in any doubt, this is for your continued posting of allegations unsupported by reliable sources regarding the father of Greta Thunberg. Wikipedia is not the place to expound conspiracy theories about living people. Guy (help!) 21:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boeing720 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not mentioned by name, by me. 1. WHAT was not supported by a reliable source ? 2. Now >>>YOU<<< have mentioned living persons by name - I DID NOT. Please block yourself and resign as admin. Boeing720 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boeing720 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The admin who blocked me cannot blame me for naming anyone (it's his/her own conclusion). The ongoing discussion was archived at Jimmy Wales talk-page, but I have to assume it's found in his latest archive. I didn't mention any name there, though full and valid refs to sources. And I added reliable sources indeed, like Times, BBC and Greenpeace. I will not mention any living persons name here, and didn't at Jimmy Wales talk-page. Whilst admin Guy do so here. The only possible solution, logically, must be to remove THIS block and instead block the Admin who does (here above)Boeing720 (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For the same reason the previous requests were declined; you need to give a convincing reason why these problems aren't going to occur, not just rant and lie. Incidentally, if you're going to tell lies you might not want to tell lies like "I didn't mention any name" that take all of two seconds to refute. Looking at the recent history of this page, you're so far into WP:IDHT that to be blunt I'm seriously inclined to extend the block to indefinite. ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I did not start this discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing720: The ANI discussion is here. If wanted, you can post comments on this talk page and someone will copy them to ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so nobody thinks that I failed to notify Boeing720 of the ANI discussion, I did, with a link to the discussion.[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if this editor has anything to say at ANI, another editor will copy it over there, I am sure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 14:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing720, I have two bits of advice for you.

First of all, while you are allowed to post to your own talk page while blocked, pretty much anything you say about the person who you were blocked for saying certain things about will get your talk page access revoked. Talk about your behavior, not about anyone else's.

Secondly, you are not going to convince anyone to lift your block by posting yet another unblock request that claims that you did nothing wrong. You have had roughly twenty people -- many of them administrators -- who have examined your behavior and found it to be unacceptable on Wikipedia. Not a single person said that what you did was OK.

You need to convince us that you understand what you did wrong and convince us that if you are unblocked you will never do it or anything like it again. Again, this is all about your behavior, not about the living person you were told not to talk about, not about the person who reported you, not about the administrator who blocked you. and not about the uninvolved administrators who rejected your unblock requests. I advise that you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks three times, sleep on it, the read it again before posting a block appeal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a surprise. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boeing720. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of fairness, to any admins who might see the above when considering any future unblock requests, note that the reported IP was in all likelihood not Boeing, so shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding (and this is coming from me, someone who isn't especially sorry to see him blocked). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read Deacon Vorbis's analysis and I agree. It looked like a sock, what with the reference to Greta Thunberg and the timing -- appearing right after the block -- but there are good reasons to think that this is a coincidence or possibly someone deliberately trying to look like a sock of someone else. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boeing720 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm NOT at a crusade vs "the dad", I'm NOT a sock puppet, ipconfig say my IP is 192.168.0.3. (though I have a second account -Boeing720B , for an extra sandbox. Never ever edited from) I have never said the dad has caused the daughters Aspberger, please understand that. (just that he makes money he most likely wouldn't, according to the provided source in Swedish). I'm may well have been affected by recent Swedish news related to him. I think we all must follow our five pillars and our guidelines. However, the second time, I wasn't aware of even implicit mentioning was prohibited. I'm sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is nowhere near enough to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Guy Macon:Could we please take matters one by one ? At ANI you wrote "I find the continued attempts to imply that Greta Thunberg has psychiatric issues caused by her father to be especially egregious, yet he repeated the implication after his block expired." This is simply all wrong. I'm no doctor of any kind but it's hardly something one can "give" someone else.

Now it has been erased, but as per 30 October, at the Greta T talk-page (where and when this matter began) stood a notice that she had been diagnosed with Aspbergers. It's still in the history file. In order to further establish that the diagnose in itself hasn't been done by me, The Guardian for instance - [10].

What I meant, was simply that this is a known fact, which she indeed acknowledges herself. I have never ever suggested that the father ([11]) has caused her this syndrome. But if I indeed had meant that the father had caused her this syndrome, then yes it would be a certain blocking case, I agree. But this was actually not what I wrote. (Angry people can read red too lightly, can't they ?)

Then - several sources states financial gain related to the father is in play here. German Der Spiegel supposedly was first to examine that issue. [12] and this has been examined further by Swedish journalist Rebecca Weidmo Udell [13] and others.

I'm not saying I have done just everything perfect in this matter, but the entire opening statement in the ANI case got wrong as you obviously thought I had suggested what you wrote there.

I'm certainly not a troll - nor at any kind of right or wrong crusade. I have further no intentions to write anything on any Thunberg family member. Boeing720 (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]