User talk:Lklundin

/Archive 1for det første så er en helt igennem neutraul meddelse omkring personen SØREN KAM at han ,ikke er retsforfulgt i Danmark aldeles neutral .mvh robotticat

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

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

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

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sven Hassel may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• film translator from [[Nørre Tranders]].<ref name=marriage>Garnisionskirken Parish Register]] (Marriage) 1946-1961, p.119</ref><ref>Mariakirken Parish Register]] (Marriage) 1944-1965, p.102</ref>

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

Please do not personalize the current MH17 article content dispute

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

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

MH 17 Preliminary report source(s) are wrong now

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Autropatroller Permissions

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

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

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

PEGIDA

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

Thanks for the heads up. I have imposed a 24 hour edit pause on that page for myself.

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

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

1PN51 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Russian

1PN51-2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Russian

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

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

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

Rollbacker

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

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

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

Little green men (2014 Crimean crisis)

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

- Yan

The confusion stems from the fact that the Russian page (incidentally the language spoken in the country from where the invasion force originates) together with the Belarusian page has a title that translates to 'Polite People', whereas the other languages have a page with a title that translates to 'Little green men'. If you edit the English page again, then please take care to distinguish the translation into Russian of the title and the alternative, English translation of the Russian term back into Russian.

Since you are Russian, perhaps you can help a bit with the corresponding Russian article ru:Вежливые люди. What really needs to be improved there is the chronology: First the unmarked soldiers were referred to as Little green men and only later where they referred to (in Russia) as Polite People. It would be good to clarify this also on the Russian page. Thanks for your interest, Lklundin (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Polite men" (Вежливые люди) appeared only after Shoygu spoke of "black cats in dark room", as means of counterpropaganda ('men' I meant, not wise and polite 'cats'); trying to introduce this into rus. lang. art. — try, and You'll see how quickly this kind of change shall be reverted;
and do not, pls, replace references that are mainly in Estonian, with English ones (appears that not all, incl. admins, do not like this). —Pietadè (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Besides that, current linking of „Little green men“ (correct translation would be: зеленые человечки, зеленые людишки — carrying kind of pejorative meaning too (someone has deleted this from ENG vers)) with „Вежливые люди“ resembles to some extent a situation, where, say we have a article in xx-pedia titled “Peoples’ Liberation Army of Freedom” (in their language) and in enwiki the same subject is dealt with say in article “Ultra-terrorist group of mass murders” — should these 2 articles be linked or not? —Pietadè (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pietade: Do you realize that your frequent edits to et:Rohelised mehikesed do not give you ownership of that article? Your unexplained revert of the perfectly OK introduction of the Template:Cite news is not actually constructive. But do not worry, just explain your revert either here or on the article talk page, and I will leave it at that. Also, please do not interfere with my attempts at engaging in collaboration with other Wikipedians. Otherwise one could get the impression that you are WP:NOTTHERE. Your general comments regarding Little green men (2014 Crimean crisis) should probably be taken to the talk page there. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One etwiki admin added there (Arutelu=Talk) a question: why it was necessary to replace "these external links" with "dragged" English templates; as she even complains on the occasion of adding simple expressions (like {{#expr:137/0.583 round 0}}) into text, and deletes them, deemed easier to revert, the more that this way they are more similar to other similar links in etwiki. As for templates: in etwiki the trend seems to be making them all in Estonian... And guidelines exist too: on making EST templates in Estonian language. —Pietadè (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pietade: Well, why don't you go ahead and show me and everyone else what those Estonian source templates look like? Introducing them on et:Rohelised mehikesed would provide you with some good faith. Lklundin (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC) PS. You are pretty close on my native language... :-)

As I started decades ago with computers' "mother language", that is English, and am not fond of translating (besides being lazy) everything possible into native languages (templates in Estonian can be found, if you type "mall:" (stands for 'template' in Estonian) you can see yourself; Viide e.g., stands for Reference); particularly "interesting" say if "northern tribes" insist on using "bench" southern tribes on the other hand insist on using "desk", etc., etc. not particularly productive activity, IMHO ;-) — Pietadè (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (11:30 PM local time.)
By the way 2: not very long time ago there was a agreement/requirement in etwiki, that all external links should be exclusively in Estonian, and linked only to articles/sources written in Estonian... ;-) —Pietadè (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pietade: You have utterly failed to justify your unsummarized revert of my edits to et:Rohelised mehikesed:

0) The disputed edits do not in any way change the actual sources being cited, so your comments about preference for native sources are irrelevant.

1) You claim to have decades' of experience with computers. With that you should see the value of quoting sources using structured templates instead of free format text. Yet, you reintroduced the free format representation.

enwiki templates are not one to one transferred to other languages, incl. etw.; I didn't reintroduce anything, simply trying these 100K+ articles to be not extremely different from each other in form (in local etwiki)

2) You argue above that on the Estonian pages special Estonian templates should be used. But the fact is that the very article under discussion already uses template:cite news and template:cite web which are both English.

This was reference to guides existing in etwiki, nothing to do with my person

3) To top it off, in your very own editing of the page you have inserted a source citation using template:cite web, for example here.

This kind of option (using ENG ver.) appeared only very recently, when one of etwiki admins coded this to possible to be used in etwiki.

4) Lastly, while very active here on my talk page, you have done nothing to follow your own suggestions for improving the article under discussion.

Yes, I created the page, and do deem, at least partly, responsible for keeping an eye on this

With that I really have to wonder what your editing motives are. At this point, I think your best option for redeeming yourself would be to revert your own revert. For bonus points, you can show me how to quote a source using an Estonian template. Lklundin (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

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

Reference errors on 12 April

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

• On the 2015 Copenhagen shootings page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

Britt McHenry revert question

I can somewhat understand your tagging the edit with WP:RECENTISM. But instead of reverting it, why not change it to a single sentence saying, something to the effect of, "A day later, the towing company released a statement saying they did not want to see Britt McHenry suspended or terminated as a result of her comments." Do you find this sentence acceptable? As it relates to her and the topic on her page.

And thank you for the invite to set-up an account, but I'll decline for now due to other time commitments that would keep me from making more than the occasional edit. 2601:2:4E00:C662:E04D:1C72:3B4B:9FA5 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could to pose the question on the Article Talk page? There more editors will be able to see it and give their recommendation. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not sure what the problem is with the Snowden category. All persons who have not been convicted are presumed innocent, and I have never seen a category with a footnote attached to it.

I didn't make the edit because I have any particular sympathy for Snowden. Instead, the problem was that "persons charged with espionage" is vague because it does not indicate whether the person has been found guilty or not. It's much better to use a category that answers that question, because it's a more specific category.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I self-reverted my revert. I think in most jurisdictions it lies in the very nature of being charged with a crime, that one is presumed innocent while charged. It also lies in the nature of being charged, that the court has not yet decided whether the charged person has been found guilty or not. So I can imagine that others may get confused as well. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If you think there's room for improvement in the cats, by all means I'd like to discuss it with you. What was happening is that lots of Wikipedia biographies were getting both the "charged" and the "convicted" cats. And technically it's true that someone who has been convicted has also been charged, but it was incredibly redundant. Additonally, when you visited the category for people "charged", you saw convicted traitors mixed together with people who were found to be completely innocent, which created a kind of guilt by association, and related confusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, interesting point. I think it is good that you are trying to address this issue, but I am unsure if it is the right approach. It would surely help if you could get input from someone familiar with the US legal system. My immediate thought regarding 'charged' is that it is a state a person is in, typically until the question of guilt has been answered by the court, or until the charges have been dropped (or perhaps some other event that I am unaware of). By that I mean that in my understanding one cannot at the same time be charged and convicted as charged, and it sounds like the Wikipedia categories could be cleaned up accordingly. But I am really not the right person to ask. Lklundin (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I could change the cat to "People charged but presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917" though it seems rather long. It would also mean we'd probably have to create further categories for people acquitted, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This proposed solution sounds redundant to me, 'charged' really should imply 'presumably innocent'. Lklundin (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I will investigate further, and will consult an expert I know, and then get back to you. It may be that we can change the cat from "Persons presumably innocent under the Espionage Act of 1917" to something like "People charged but not guilty under the Espionage Act of 1917". The only potential problem with that is use of negative terminology in the category name, but I will investigate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, good luck. Lklundin (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My expert friend recommends getting rid of the "Persons presumably innocent..." category and also the "Persons charged...." category, leaving only the "Persons convicted...." category. And we could create a "Persons acquitted category...." But Snowden would not belong in either category, because he's been neither convicted nor acquitted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we're all set now, per Category:Persons_charged_under_the_Espionage_Act_of_1917. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a real improvement. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned sources

Could you please tell me which sources I orphaned? I double-checked and verified that my edit only removed two redundant sources while all the others remained the same, I only changed their places. Did you probably mean this edit by the bot (not me) [1]? It does seem it made a few errors. EkoGraf (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I did indeed attribute the errors of the bot to you. I apologize and will try to be more careful (and hope that someone will take care of the erroneous bot). All the best, Lklundin (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Its no problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Erik Crone (film producer)

Okay IMDB never goes as a ref only as a EL-and its odd but it is considered unsourced when there are no refs but only el's. Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Having read the WP:USERG guidance, I must say it is hard to judge what content on IMDB is generated by editorial staff rather than random users.

So I will make sure not to quote IMDB for anything even mildly controversial. Since a family relation involving two BLP's qualifies as that, I have provided a reliable source (although not in English), and reinstated your el-edit.

Thanks and all the best, Lklundin (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Lklundin, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

actually...

To answer your question in this edit sumarry [2], it is actually the legend of Prometheus, retold in a hip-hop context. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That's pretty creative (and on reflection also a handy source of inspiration without copyright issues)... All the best, Lklundin (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits to "The Black Book of Communism" page

I have recently tried to edit the page on, "The Black of Communism" page. My goal was to make the lacking section on Criticisms more complete. I decided to talk about the conversation between the Maoist International Movement, Mark Kramer (the editor of the book) and The Harvard University Press (the publishers of the book). I had added the sources to the argument. One was from an archive of the old Maoist International Movement's website. The source contained E-Mails from between all parties, and included the letter from Mark Kramer in which he allegedly agreed with the MIM. I find that these sources provide a great insight into the criticisms against the book.

I am also confused about your claims that my passage wasn't "neutral". The general idea of Wikipedia is to foster new ideas and new perspectives of events, and I find that my passage brought up necessary criticisms in an area where it is lacking. The claim that I am biased seems like it might be coming from biased opinions itself. In my latest revision of the passage (as of 4:56 P.M. on June 6th, 2015) I attempted to compromise and find a middle ground. I specifically called the called the letters "alleged' and attempted to make the reader think for themselves. I will admit that I could have done a better job at doing it, but the passage that you replaced it with provides little to no context on the basis of the MIM's claims. I feel that presented their claims helps the reader decide for themselves, and for somebody who is truly looking into criticisms of "The Black Book Of Communism". I would like to wrap my discontent with your "neutrality" claims up by saying that although you can find an abundance of criticisms against communism, criticisms against capitalism and their claims against communism are not represented well on this site. It seems as though there is not a lot of this supposed "neutrality" on this site.

I will continue fighting for a more accurate representation of the Maoist International Movements criticisms against "The Black Book of Communism", and will not stop until it is given one. Feel free to contact me and continue the discussion.

Sincerely, Peachman2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachman2000 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Winton

Hi Lklundin. Many thanks for your careful edits on Winton's parents' and his own marriage. Just wondering if the "engineer Robert Charles Winton as his best man" may have been his brother. We don't seem to know if he had any siblings, although the article currently says he was "a son" not "the son". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a quick googling indicates that his best man was indeed his brother (as is often the case). I have only experience with (and access to) Scandinavian genealogical records, so I have no RS for this. Please beware that the information from web-pages of hobby genealogists is not RS and should always be validated with a RS. PS. In many cases a person's parents are listed with the father first. Is there a particular reason why this is different here? Lklundin (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No reason I am aware of. Some editors have problems with using findmypast.com search results on their own, let alone "web-pages of hobby genealogists". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessments

Can anybody provide me with some links or thoroughly explain to me how to do an article assessment and an article peer review. I'm kind interested in helping contribute to Wikipedia by assessing and reviewing articles William239 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)