.User talk:Boeing720/Archive 1

.User talk:Boeing720/Archive 2

.User talk:Boeing720/Archive 3

.User talk:Boeing720/Archive 4

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

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

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.

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]

   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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Nobody cares that you "have further no intentions to write anything on any Thunberg family member" now that you have been blocked. The time to stop was when you received one of the many warnings that you ignored.

I said that you implied that Greta Thunberg has psychiatric issues caused by her father, and I stand by that statement. See Implicature. However. even if I am wrong, by my count twenty seven editors and nine Wikipedia administrators have told you that various aspects of your behavior are unacceptable, and zero of either have come to your defense. And now you have the unmitigated gall to once again claim that you didn't do anything wrong?

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#Boeing720 thirteen of the comments supported either a topic ban or an indefinite block, with the indef having a clear majority. Zero comments opposed sanctioning you. Your response? Everyone else is wrong and you alone are right.

This is the last bit of attention you will receive from me. You are clearly ineducable. I have used the muted users feature (It is in the notifications section of the preferences tab) so that I will no longer receive any notifications if you ping me or link to my name. I have also disabled your ability to email me just in case you ever decide to. Finally, I am unwatching your talk page. You can reply to this if you wish, but I will not see the reply, so you will be shouting into an empty hall.

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(40 year old joke) I did not say I hadn't done anything wrong, but no where near to have accused the father of making the daughter ill. And you know it, mr very muscular admin.

Making money on this is a totally different matter. And we do allow sources in foreign languages. I could have translated for you. (as of our guidelines, I'm obligated to do so at request)

This ANI verdict solely depended on an untrue prosecution if it had been in the real world. It was unfair and I wasn't even at home. And then trying to make me a troll was really low.

Thanks @Deacon Vorbis:, I guess you are fair. I wish you well. Boeing720 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimmy Wales: Truly sorry to disturb you (again). As I now feel forced to leave after 7 years, I think it would be beneficial for Wikipedia in the future, to use this case (preferably all of it) in a future education of Admins. This last matter was not my best day, but misunderstandings, deliberate wrongful interpretations, furious admins, topped with an untrue "ANI-prosecution" and slimy or scared youngsters - and proper lies (of which the worst one though was revealed thanks to Deacon Vorbis) made it far worse than necessary, I honestly feel. I am still very fond of your invention, Jimmy, take care of it. Could someone close down my account and delete it ? Boeing720 (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to "delete" an account. You're indefinitely blocked. Just stop posting to your talk page and your account will be as "shut down" as can be. Meters (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing720: I am sorry to see you give up on Wikipedia. I have very mixed feelings here, but I think it is necessary to make an impression on you that something about how you are approaching this place is not working. I hope you will take some more time to reflect on everything that has happened and what people have said. Maybe at some point you will be able to come back with some contrition and explain what went wrong and why you won't do it again. Unfortunately, as I have observed before, I think it may be a personality trait of yours to resist being told you've done something unacceptable or incorrect. In which case it may well be time to move on to other things. Why not leave it open and if you come to any epiphany about this situation later you can come back and explain? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you encourage me, I will ask. If you can see how preposterous GUY's "ANI-indictment" really is, by first thoroughly go through just everything I have written since October 30th, may I then ask if you would you like to be my "barrister" and bring it up at ANI again - presumably encoutering this GUY ?

The HUGE problem is explained to GUY above. The result at ANI was based on something I never ever have said, implied or otherwise suggested. Do you really think I should reflect on lies ? How would that help me becoming a better human being ? Or a better Wikipedian ? Most voices at that ANI was like a gang of small dogs - wof wof wof. It all becomes even more obvious, as GUY later falsely accused me for socking. Remember - the entire case falls with a wrongful accusation. But I guess you still may be a bit too young for doing this. It's OK.

I wait a few days logging out, otherwise I wish you well, DIY. I think you could be an excellent teacher. Boeing720 (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hope you will decide to come back soon and adjust! —DIYeditor (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIYeditor - Thanks! Same to you a month to late, but still. But what do you think I should do ? "Indefinete" just seems to be "for ever and ever". Any advices ? Please remember that those who voted at ANI (whilst I was suspended for 31 hrs and couldn't defend myself) voted like they did based om a LIE. I've never suggested that a certain father should have caused his girl Aspbergers. Just that he has gained financially from the media-circus about her - per sources no one has rejected as unreliable. German Der Spiegel among them.

If you mean that one must obey to admins as to Kings during the Middle Ages, then I'm not interested.

If anyone could go back and point at my supposed break of our pillars and guidelines, then I could easily adjust. But I honestly don't think I have. (Not after the first 24 hrs block). Boeing720 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you make another edit so I will say something before I have a full response. All you had to do was stop poking the Greta topic when warned. If you would just apologize for not stopping maybe they would unblock you. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIYeditor - This was far from my finest week at Wikipedia. But I didn't really poke that subject. It was not my intention at least. With exception of my photo-changing proposal at the GT talk-page, which clearly was made against our pillars and guidelines, as I, in an addition, gave her father the label "some kind of communist". I'm sorry for that. And I realise that I should not have written that even at a talk-page, as our guidelines include all our pages. I do believe that this had been the end of the matter, if it were not for that admin's "Let's discuss" text. I genuinely took it for a desire to discuss. This caused me to incidentally repeat the error in a question (or similar enough), as I can remember it today. I then was blocked for the first time ever, without receiving any answer. (24h) After having thought about it for several days I felt a strong need to explain myself, especially after having read some reliable sources on the subject, in German and Swedish. And I did so at Jimmy Wales talk-page, which possibly made the admins angry. (?) But I do so once in a while, as I hope our founder can find some interest in them.

And as you can see above, another admin then twisted matters around - to the degree I most certainly cannot use any other word for than a lie. Whilst I largely wrote

"The father has benefited financially from the daughter's diagnosis (after she became famous, naturally)"

this was through the increased value of the shares in the father's two own limited companies, as per last autumn and according to the mentioned sources - which at ANI became:

"The father has caused the daughter Aspbergers and has since used her in order to gain money" (or very very similar)

Am I really alone on this planet to see the huge difference here ? And at ANI I couldn't even defend myself due to a "preparing" 31 hrs block ! (My second ever, 31 hours, not 24 or 48 ???) On top of this, the second admin then "found out":

"Wow. What a surprise. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boeing720."

Another lie! Obvious a lie, which User:Deacon Vorbis thankfully revealed. Despite the fact that we have had some "medium painful" experiences of each other a few times in the past, which Deacon also points out in his own way above. Deacon Vorbis has thereby proved at least to me that he is an honest Wikipedian.

DIY please, exactly what am I supposed to apologise for and to whom ? You know (better than most) that I'm very capable of appologising, if and when I've been wrong. It was wrong of me to call the father "some kind of communist" - this was careless, lacked source and wrongfully done of me. And although not in an article, it was still against our policy on living persons. It may further have been wrong of me to try to correct this error afterwards. Do you possibly have any further advice to me? Boeing720 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} will get the attention of an admin. Another option is for someone (me) to post your unblock request to WP:AN (not ANI). I would only be comfortable doing so if it omitted any mention of you being in the right or having been wronged, and acknowledged the things others have said are problematic, which is what you should do with an unblock request on this page. I don't see any benefit to "sticking to your guns" on this. Does it really matter if you are right or wrong? The thing to do is look over the reasons for the block and find a way to accept responsibility. Describe how you have made mistakes, not how you have not. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's not really a right or wrong question to me, but having to appoligise to... ...well never mind. I can put it behind me, and the initial article/person(s) are not my cup of tea at all anyways. I'm a bit busy with my old mother and other things this weekend. I also need to think a day or two especially about your last sentence. I will return Tuesday evening with a reply on your last sentence. And if you then are comfortable in assisting me, one way or the other, I will be glad for all kind of help. Whether it helps or not. Boeing720 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIYeditor First - I have tried the unblocking way before, and if you feel for attempting another way, then I would be very grateful. Just as I am with your advises so far.

Then - on the topic of what I've done wrong and not, it was stupid of me to call the dad "some kind of communist", which gave me a formal warning. That was totally without any source and it doesn't matter that it was at a talk-page.

Earlier, (during eight years) I've only come in troubles a few times and never before has it been related to Wikipedian behaviour, but like the grammar issues with you, that Swedish Pomerania's capital was spelled "Stettin" at the time, which someone from Poland disliked and something about to the music in a film etc. In discussions, I've both convinced others, been convinced of the opposite by others as well as given others the ball, without thinking he or she is right. I subjectively but honestly think I'm a bit better than average, when it comes to politeness in discussions over the years. At the very least I'm not impolite. In this case I might have been misinterpreted, especially regarding the "let's discuss" included in an admin's signature. But I'm not really certain of that. I am certain of being sorry however.

I've got no earlier admin warning or blocking. Infact I have always thought the admins are very good here. Further, I do indeed respect our pillars, and I'm largely familiar with our guidelines.

I've mainly contributed within the subjects of geography (especially where I live, southernmost of Sweden and Greater Copenhagen, history (Scanian history since the Vikngs, European history from 1779), football and interesting facts one read or watches on television. I'm a serious Wikipedian without malicious intentions. I understand something went wrong here, and I don't think it will be repeated.

Further advises ? Like 98,5 % live edits - are such facts worth something ? (I'll be logged on) Thanks for now. (I've got the "ping" syntax etc in one of my sandboxes, but they are currently unreachable. Just if you wonder) Boeing720 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to look into it further to help you I will, but you were blocked twice before the indefinite block. As I remember you posted on Jimbo's page about the same topic after having been blocked once? At least after having been warned on your talk page? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third blocking are/is one an the same, from my perspective. They first blocked me for 31 hours, and during that time I was unable to say anything at ANI. Not to pull any trigger agai, but the purpose with the second 31 hours was just done for the ANI matter. (There was no blocking-intermission between them, and I was not even able to comment the "indictment" at ANI.) Perhaps the chronology (as I can recall it) is of some help ?

1. After having watched miss GT on TV, when she preached "no forgiveness" , I just thought the photo of her could be changed - and sadly added that the dad "is some kind of communist". After a while I then got a warning.
2. I then got blocked by that same admin. Sailing with his daughter across the North Atlantic might well be dangerous, at his talk-page. That was the very first blocking to me ever.
3. Almost a week after the 24 hour blocking had ended, I then enlightened "Jimbo" what I thought about it all. I also posted actual (= through sources) facts on the father, I'm no longer certain of where, but it was at a talk-page. One source was the German Der Spiegel (The Mirror) , which is a weekly counterpart to Time Magazine and Newsweek.
4. A new 31 hour blocking soon followed anyways, and during these 31 hours the matter was over and done with at ANI. (and the indictment at ANI was, like I've explained, horribly twisted)
   

That's about it, chronologically. Boeing720 (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will get back to you later I have been drinking. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor, you should not take this to AN for Boeing720. The comment from Cullen was wrt to the ANI thread that was under discussion while Boeing720 was already under a short block. That thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#Boeing720 closed more than 3 months ago with an extension of the block to the current indef for person attacks, incompetence, and BLP violations. If Boeing720 wants to request an unblock then he or she knows how to do it on this page. After seeing the above I doubt it would be successful though. Meters (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not wish to pull any trigger. The log Meters put a link to, is not correct on dates. (The 31 hour block became indefinite) Anyways, I wrote this 16:42, 7 November 2019 - "The not adult girl, like I wrote, has at national television SVT, program Skavlan brought up her psyciatric diagnosis at least twice. ... The dad owns lots of shares in a company that has gone sky-high at the Stockholm stock exchange ... But without being experts, the dad has through his daughter pointed out not just aviation wrongfully, but range of products." With sources. (Addition - a psyciatric diagnosis isn't the same as a psyciatric disease. Many "Aspbergers" are popular to the right employers. It's not at all to compare with an illness like schizophrenia.

It was at that time not possible to me to find any source in English. But now this has become possible [[14]], and the Telegraph is a good enough source, isn't it ? (quote: "brainwashed and pushed on to the global stage by her parents – a Swedish couple supposedly pulling the strings for ill-defined reasons of their own.") So - have I really done so much wrong about this dad ? (after the first 24 hour block) Boeing720 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're not entirely to blame as DIYeditor has been posting here and provoking you to respond, but the misuse of this talk page has gone on long enough and as such I've revoked your access to it. If you want to make a genuine appeal rather than continue to post about your obsession with Greta Thunberg (it won't be myself who makes the decision but I would think an undertaking never to mention, insinuate about or allude to her ever again would be an absolute minimum precondition for any unblock), click this link and complete the form to submit a request via UTRS. ‑ Iridescent 12:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond here even though TP access is revoked since I have been pinged by Iridescent. Not sure in what sense you mean provoking, I assume in not in the sense of fault, but I did definitely not mean to cause Boeing720 to continue the behavior, I hoped I would be able to explain. I feel some affinity for this user and am sorry to see them go. I refrained from submitting the report on behavior that occurred some time ago that ultimately contributed to the recent block because I did not want to see them blocked. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]