Hi, Lklundin. I asked comments concerning usage of {{convert}} and {{cvt}}. As this request was triggered by your edit and particularly by your edit summary, you are welcome to comment it. Beagel (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just got told off for making some bad edits, but I don't know what you're talking about. I contribute occasionally to Wikipedia, but that is the extent of my participation. I have never edited anything, nor has anybody in this household. sigh 184.151.61.2 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the IP-address you are currently using was last used for making a sequence of non-constructive changes, that were undone by another contributor. That has nothing to do with me. For your occasional contributions to Wikipedia, I recommend creating an account. Happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest to read WP:NPA. I am referring to your words: "In fact, I find your above English rather broken, so instead of rushing to provide your opinion you could take an extra moment to phrase your response ...". It may be true that my English is broken, but please, also if I understand that you don't like my points, getting personal is not useful. --Robertiki (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is one of the world's most visited web-sites I am afraid that you will have to accept that the language of your contributions get some scrutiny, personal as that may seem. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not your scrutiny of my language that is a personal attack. So you prefer to jest me around and won't apologize your patronizing attacks. Well, I'm embarrassed. Perusing your contributions, I see that I am not the only one. A snap once a time may happen, but it looks like you won't repent. I hope you take my writing for a moment of reflection.

I take this opportunity to point out your improper use of the Edit summary field. I invite you to read WP:SUMMARYNO, in particular the third and fourth point.

No grudge, please take this, hopefully useful, words only as a by note. --Robertiki (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the tips. I went back and re-edited, this time with sources. I also didn't remove the original content. However, it is concerning to me that the only contribution in the section before I got there was a single anecdote about 50 rioters at Berkeley.

Best, Mjleone (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am glad you were encouraged to go on contributing by my message and I hope that will continue. I write that because Wikipedia is created by people who are very different, so some are bound to be different from you. For example, until the most recent US presidential election, our article on Anti-fascism had a very long perspective, mostly concerning itself with events from WWII and the Cold War (and its aftermath). So a very detailed description of current events on that page is likely to be challenged, per our policy on WP:RECENTISM. Happy editing! Lklundin (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoah, here, User::Lklundin, slow down. You're coming off mighty hair-trigger and imperious - and no way to treat someone whom you do or don't know whether is feeling their way around Wikipedia.

I did not revert your revert of my edit. You gave your reason. I let it stand, poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.

I did restore legitimate edits to the lede that another user summarily reverted without explanation - and invited *them* to take it to Talk. That's not an edit war. It is if *they* don't take it there. Meanwhile, both that user and I have been leaving messages trying to sort things out on our respective Talk pages.

Give your laser sword a rest. Try being constructive instead. Yours, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. You can reduce the risk of being seen as a disruptive editor by creating your own account so your contributions become attributable to you. For now I have removed the 3RR-warning from your talk-page and I will leave it to you and the other editor(s) to sort out your differences. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, a fuzzy kitten and a pork pie and a That's Hands Down the Most Stand-up Thing I've Ever Seen at Wikipedia Barnstar to you, User:Lklundin.

I tip my hat.

I dunno, is there a more gentle way of breaking the news to someone they might be descending into an edit war without realizing both its slippery slope and gravity? One that doesn't come off so imperious and heavy-handed? Wikipedia could sure use one. Given all your obvious talents perhaps in your spare time you could come up with one. It would pay huge dividends to the encyclopedia, as the one it has is aggressive, agitating, peremptory, and flat-out scary. Scares off alot of potentially helpful editors that way, or antagonizes them right into being dragged into something that will not end happily, with either a suspension or outright boot. Yours, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 808 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

re: Your edit summary: (rm empty references section)

Thank you for your thankless job of cleaning up wikipedia. In general, empty sections are discouraged. However writing articles with references is the basic requirement in wikipedia, therefore ad empty "Reference" section is a good reminder . Besides sooner of later it is supposed to become filled :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

i cannot find your response! meybe if you want we could discuss here 83.185.80.173 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you cool with the edit I made on the Donald Trump Jr. article? I'd like to know because another editor is giving me a hard time about it (due to it being a "reversion"), and suggested I ask you so there would be "consensus". Vjmlhds (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin- Vjmlhds is coming off of a months-long block. He's also now restricted to 0RR through October 25-- that means no reverts. I restored your version of the Trump, Jr., article due to Vjm's current editing restriction (not his fault w/ that first revert, but he's since been reminded by the blocking admin not to revert). I defer to you regarding the NPOV template, etc. Levdr1lp / talk 02:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added a reference that verifies that Trump JR did face criticism - that is a verifiable fact, so it belongs in the article. I have also added the qualifier "by some" to show the criticism wan't universal (also verified by the reference). That little added qualifier should soothe any WP:NPOV issues. So you were correct in your assertion about addressing the criticism, and all I did was show there were some that didn't feel that way. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Vjmlhds That sounds like a balanced way to present the information. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lklundin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)