User talk:Thomas Blomberg/Archive 2

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

Brian Cox

When you moved Brian Cox to Brian Cox (actor), and then changed the old title to a disambiguation page, you may have overlooked the fact that several hundred other Wikipedia articles contain links to "Brian Cox". All of those links are now pointing to the wrong page and need to be fixed. As this guideline notes, if you change the page to which an existing title links, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I see there was a bot in 2006 reminding people about this, I wish it was still around. Anyway, you clearly know about edit summaries and I'm asking you again to use them. They are a vital part of the communication between editors necessary in a collaborative exercise such as Wikipedia. I've restored some citee text that you removed from Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi without an edit summary. I can't see any reason to remove it (full disclosure, I added the original text). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo this. Edit summaries certainly make my life considerably easier. Please try to include them. me_and (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 12:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wall-Mart

To my knowledge, the article, who is now a redirect, is not under any protection (move/edit) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rubicon poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rubicon poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gustav Vasa

Thank you for the good work you do. Here though, you applied 2011 name format to a birth in the 1490s. That's misleading and inappropriate. "Vasa" was not a family name (surname) then, and there was no such thing as a middle name. See my edit comment in fixed it back. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

From where, please, do you have the information you are asserting in this edit summary? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making that latest edit! All's well that ends well. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Source information needed for File:Robin and the 7 Hoods Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Robin and the 7 Hoods Poster.jpg. However, the file description needs source information before it's okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

  1. Add a detailed description of who the original author is and where you got it. Please be specific, and include a link to the source if you can.
  2. Be sure to save the page.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Vägverket

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:PD-Vägverket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Concert for NYC.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Concert for NYC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of disambiguated titles

Are you planning to create new pages called Unseen character and Secret character, or redirect them somewhere else? If not then I think you have misunderstood the purpose of parentheses with disambiguated titles at Wikipedia. They are there to distinguish between two or more existing Wikipedia articles which might otherwise have been called the same. They are not there to provide further clarifaction of the article subject when there is no other existing article to confuse it with. See more at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Will you object to reverting the moves, or do it yourself? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

After looking further at your contributions I guess you might have planned to redirect them to Hidden character. That would be within the purpose of disambiguation, but check out MOS:DABENTRY for how to formulate the entries. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I restored (as best I could) the "Unseen character" page and its talk page as it was. The page is primarily about the theatre, where the term originates. In fact, the page is not about video games at all. I have left the newly created "Unseen character (video games)" and its talk page as is in the hope that you plan to edit those pages so that they actually are about the video game use of the term. If not, then those new pages don't serve a purpose. 99.192.84.134 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with PrimeHunter. There are several very similar terms. However, I do believe this could be resolved with hatnotes. If a disambiguation is needed, I would suggest using Hidden character (disambiguation), leaving the articles at their current titles and linking to the disambiguation page with hatnotes. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That disambiguation page is what I've created. Please see Hidden character. The whole reason I did this was because "Hidden character" redirected to Unseen character and Hidden characters redirected to Secret character, while anyone looking for "hidden character" as a term within text processing and digital typesetting was left without any way of knowing that Wikipedia calls such a character a control character. However, Microsoft Word calls such a character a "nonprintable character", Nisus Writer calls it an "invisible character", and Adobe InDesign calls it a "hidden character", to just give a few example, so there is obviously a need to help people looking for either of these terms to the article Control character. Unfortunately, in my haste to get this sorted before someone started to change my changes in mid stream, and because Secret character apparently is a term used in video games, I mistakenly thought that "Unseen character" also was a video game term. Sorry about that. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

kidman = model

Im not going to fight it, because I dont care that much, and definatley not enough to go find RS for it (although some of the following may qualify), but I do think its fair to say kidman is a promotional model.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael Fry

If there are other notable people by this name, don't move the existing article until the other people have articles themselves. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As there are a number of other notable persons with the same name, it's better to do such a move before writing the other articles, with a redirect from the clean name article until that page can become a disambiguation page. Such a praxis makes it a lot easier to add the other persons, and it also gives those contributors a subtle hint on how to do those article names.
So, what other notable persons are named Michael Fry? Well, there's the Scottish historian, broadcaster and former politician Michael Fry, who has published some six-seven books on various Scottish historical subjects; the Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the University of Southern California Michael Graham Fry, also known as Michael G. Fry, who has also written several books about international relations (among them the seminal 2011 work about Lloyd George, "And Fortune Fled"); the British stage director and teacher Michael Fry (who was the reason I did that move, in anticipation of writing an article about him); the Irish mathematician Michael Fry; the US TV actor Michael Fry; and the US screen writer Michael Fry. There are also several Mike Fry, besides the Mike Fry who unashamedly self-promotes himself in Wikipedia.
So, for all these reasons I think it's better if the article about the cartoonist Michael Fry is labelled Michael Fry (cartoonist). The strange revert done today by 5 albert square means that Michael Fry (cartoonist) now redirects to Michael Fry, which doesn't make any sense at all. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to wait until after the other Michael Frys have pages? Currently, no other Michael Fry has a page. Don't put the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
But on the other hand, why not? What harm does it do to have the page titled Michael Fry (cartoonist) instead of simply Michael Fry? As long as there is only one Michael Fry in Wikipedia, a page that has Michael Fry as a redirect to Michael Fry (cartoonist) will lead anyone looking for the cartoonist directly to that article, while, at the same time, anyone creating a page for another Michael Fry will quickly realise that the redirect page can be changed into a disambiguation page. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Storm-Over-the-Nile.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Storm-Over-the-Nile.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edith Unnerstad

Hi there. One user have translated parts of the Swedish article about Edith Unnerstad and nominated it for DYK. With this edit, you added some info to the Swedish article that we are currently discussing (discussion can be seen [[1]]). My question to you is: Wasn't it Edith's "farmor" not "mormor" that lived in Åland, (if my understanding of this is right, it was her fathers mother) and what is your source on that the grandma died before Edith's family moved there and that Edith's mother inherited the cottage. Looking forward for a reply. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The confusion comes from the ambiguous text about Edith's father in Geni, that "they moved to the mother's little cottage in Åland." The Geni contributor means Edith's mother (or her maternal grandmother), which becomes obvious on the Geni page about Edith's maternal grandmother, where the same Geni contributor states that she was "lotsänka från Åland" (pilot's widow from Åland). There are several other sources that support that Edith's mother was from Åland, and that the family moved there in 1908 when Edit's mother's mother died. I've now added more such sources to the Swedish article. One of them is an interview from 2007 in the Åland newspaper Nya Åland with Edit's daughter. That article also claims that the family moved back to Åland from Stockholm in 1918, which is also supported by a link to Mariehamn's kulturnämnd, which shows a picture of "Axel Tötterman's house" in Mariehamn. If Edith accompanied the family there in 1918 is uncertain, as she studied art in Stockholm and married there in 1924. Cheers, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Maria Graham

Hello, Thomas. I noticed that you are the editor who contributes the most to the article about Maria Graham. I have a few extra info about her stay in Brazil, including why she left. If you're interested, I might add it. P.S.: Shouldn't the article be renamed to "Maria Graham" since it's the name she is mostly known? --Lecen (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lecen. If you have additional info with references, by all means add it. As for the article name I agree, so I've just switched the Maria Graham redirect with the article name Maria Callcott, so now Maria Graham is the article name, while Maria Callcott is a redirect to it. Cheers Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Info: vote for federation or confederation

Hello. Information: on the discussion page of European Union exist voting: Talk:European_Union#Definition_of_the_European_Union. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ice-Cold-in-Alex.jpg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Ice-Cold-in-Alex.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Pedophilia article

Hello, Thomas Blomberg. I reverted you on this edit, per what I stated in that edit summary: The sources state "13 years or younger," which is also addressed lower in the article. I agree that 13 is a bit high, but it's what the sources state. 13 presumably relates to some boys, as discussed on the talk page before.

To see the most recent discussion about the age ranges, refer to Talk:Hebephilia#Definition and serious problems in the article hebephilia.

Further, per WP:MEDRS (reliable medical sources), when medically defining pedophilia, we should go by what the authoritative sources state first and foremost. Any source stating that pedophilia is "12 years or younger" is trumped by what the authoritative sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see any reference to 13 in the references that were quoted and available on the internet, which was why I changed it, in an effort to stress that the term should be reserved for sexual interest in true children, as many seem to think that anyone engaged in sex with those under the age of consent is a pedophile. Should we adopt that view, it would mean that someone engaged in sex with a 19 year old is a pedophile if it happens in Tunisia, while someone doing the same thing with a 14 year old in Spain isn't. Checking again, I did find a reference to 13 in one of the links in the infobox, so I'll add that as a reference. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The first line is supported by five references at the end of the paragraph; a few of those, including the first one (which is the authoritative source that set the age range), mention the age range being cut off at 13 years old. I understand that you don't have full access to a few of those sources, but the reference to 13 is already covered. And, yes, this link in the infobox also covers it. But I'll go ahead and move the references up to the first line, and let one or two support the final line.
As for many people thinking that any adult engaged in sex with a person under the age of consent is a pedophile, the article sufficiently addresses this, both in the lead and in the Misuse of medical terminology section. The article stresses that pedophilia is accurately defined as a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In the case of a 14-year-old with a 19-year-old, the 19-year-old would not be medically considered a pedophile unless the 14-year-old is prepubescent (or looks prepubescent) and the 19-year-old has a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Also keep in mind, that as the Pedophilia article notes, people as young as age 16 can be diagnosed as pedophiles. As for the argument about defining pedophilia based on the age of consent and age of majority, I see that you are in a debate about that...which was spurred on by your having visited the Pedophilia article. For years, I have made similar arguments about not basing pedophilia on the age of consent and age of majority. See this old discussion and this recent discussion, for example. I will briefly weigh in on the debate that you are currently involved in to help you out. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Inheritors

why is the 2007 award being given for a 1998 film? Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake when sorting out the film titles of Stefan Ruzowitzky's films. Good you spotted it! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)