User talk:Plrk/Archive 5

Re: George Sowden

Hi Jobjörn, thanks for the nice comments :) I will continue to contribute to wikipedia as best as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.143.132 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SUF-logo.gif

I have tagged Image:SUF-logo.gif as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Lokal_Profil 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, an SVG! Can't you tag it as being redundant to have it gone faster? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ship of Fools, Richard Paul Russo (book cover).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ship of Fools, Richard Paul Russo (book cover).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs & TW

Hello,
You've been editing a range of articles. While doing so you've been removing all thumbs and, as a result, transformed those articles into a disaster. I propose you reconsider how you use TW.
Thanks
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're right. I thought I was removing width specification on thumbnails, but apparently some were not thumbnails (like they should have been). I'll repair my mistakes. Jobjörn (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I started to revert your edits, but I'll leave it all up to you from now on.
Happy editing
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got them all. Drop me a line if I missed any. Jobjörn (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks complete to me. Again, happy editing.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-like aliens

You prodded this article a while ago. Just thought you may be interested to know I have recently nominated it for deletion via AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat-like aliens if interested. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berghain&diff=next&oldid=190658521

You shouldn't fix typos that are inside quotation marks. Thanks.P4k (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Thanks for the note. Jobjörn (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

Custom user template categorizations are allowed; I just looked it up. If I thought or acted otherwise, I was wrong. I meant to delete categorizations only from substituted templates. I made an apology for any accidents on my talk page. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Selman Trtovac

I'd like to ask, what you expecting from me exactly. How can I improve this article? Help me somehow. I'm sure that this article has no problem with notability. I'm very sorry to see there is some problem.--Alexandra Nastic (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks the answer to a simple question: why is this person notable? Why is he famous? Also, that the article is orphaned is I think a more immediate concern, you ought to take care of that.
Another thing. You've upload the following images: Image:Syncronisation 01.JPG, Image:Ruka ubice 01.jpg, Image:Spirala straha 02.JPG, Image:Plexus solaris.jpg. In all cases, they are uploaded under the claim that you are the author. I'm wondering: is this true? All but Image:Plexus solaris.jpg are sculptures, so I suppose it is possible that you've taken the pictures (but have you really?). However, I'm under the impression that Plexus Solaris is a piece of photographic artwork by Selman Trtovac... and thus, not you. If this is the case, you have most definitely breached copyright law and Wikipedia's rules. This is not OK and we (Wikipedia) could get in trouble for it. Please clarify the situation. Jobjörn (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your critics and sugestions. I know personaly artist Selman Trtovac. He gave me a permision to write the article and to use his photos and I take the responsability. I already wrote a few articles about artists in the ArtFama magazine in Serbia and I want to begin with articles about important young artists from Serbia in Wikipedia. This kind of information should be published (my opinion). There is lot of information from his biography. I used only selection. His work is importent in two art scenes German and Serbian. This conection should be known. I'm going to work it out! --Alexandra Nastic (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably not good enough. To begin with, you have not only "used" his photos, you have released them under the terms of the GFDL. Also, you've said they were self-made - which they weren't. As thus, you've lied, which is bad.
Further, have you read Wikipedia:Notability (people)? I am not able to see how Trtovac lives up to the basic criteria in there. It is important that he does, else the article may be deleted (see: Wikipedia:Deletion process).
Third: that you are writing an article about a personal friend might put you in a Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest-situation. Jobjörn (talk)
Dear Mr. Jobjorn I'm really not interested in any kind of disagreement. I didn’t say he is friend of mine, I told that I know him as well I know lot of artists and I want to, as I told, write another articles about artist. It would be pity do delete my articles instead to improve wiki basis. If you are that responsible you could help me. Than You.--Alexandra Nastic (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't - and won't - help people who falsify copyright licenses write articles about people that are clearly non-notable. I would suggest that you come up with proof of this artist's notability, that is, proof that he has received significant coverage in at least three reliable secondary sources that are independent of himself. If you can do that, I can help you further. Jobjörn (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the bibliography gives the reference about work of somebody. Selection of bibliography I wrote: first in the list is monographic book published by Museum in Smederevo, fourth is book from International Biennale in Vrsac, fifth is book of the selection of 12 European artist in museum in Fabriano, sixth is Saldo Exhibition’s book from one of the most important museums in Germany and seventh is also book from the Museum of modern art in Belgrade. All this references are independent. All information can be disproved.--Alexandra Nastic (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that all books listed were authored by Selman Trtovac, I'm sorry. However, I'm now under the impression that it's practically a list of catalogues from museums and galleries - is there significant coverage? If he is as famous as you say he is, why can I hardly find him at Google? Jobjörn (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is problem with lot of artists! Google is sometimes also not deep enough. I know that because I’m working as librarian. I can make the scans of this books (the coverage and the first site of this books).--Alexandra Nastic (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD on Interstellar Concordium

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Interstellar Concordium, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD on Lyran

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Lyran, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Interstellar Concordium

Thanks for letting me know but I haven't been involved in editing this article so I'm neutral. I was simply patrolling the new PRODs for today to ensure they were all valid. Redfarmer (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw you only made one edit. I thought you should know anyways. Jobjörn (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Boy

I think we should discuss this. I appreciate you pointing me to the MOS and page specific links for redlinkage, but the instance of that inclusion is the supposition that an article about that subject is connected to another article, or that an article actually exists on that topic. For example, take the link you offered to MOS in regards to disambiguation pages. We can include a redlink in a dab when the dab term is connected to a blue-linked term, like Red (Communards album), an album by Communards. Whereas the album is without connection, its speaking to the main subject of the band, which has a link. Likewise, "Redlink" discussed when to create redlinks. If you are truly of the opinion that the article about the Danish film about male prostitution is going to be created (i.e., you are about to create it and get it to GA and FA), then include it. If not, then don't link it.
With that in mind, I will wait exactly one week from today (until Thursday, April 3, 2008) to see if you or anyone else create the aforementioned article. If it appears, splendid. If not, I will remove the redlink as extraneous. Agreed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was to immediately set out to write the article, realizing of course that I could never manage more than a stub. On second thought, however, it can go to non-notable hell. While I ain't the raving deletionist I perhaps once was, some things just should go. Cheers! Jobjörn (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty sure that your first inkling was to knock out the article (kinda my plan there - muwah hah haaa), but I don't think either of us should be worried about it never getting linked. Somewhere out there, someone ho thinks that movie is the best thing since sliced bread is going to come along and write up the article and make it all pretty, with shrubbery and whatnot. Then other folk are going to come along and DAB it. It will happen. I've seen it happen. There's no hurry right now. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Wasn't intending to offend. Just a total noob, which I'm sure you see your fair share of. Thanks for your patience. I've followed your instructions, and have been helped by another user to better write this article. Thanks again. Baldilocks (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Welcome to Wikipedia! Jobjörn (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awwwww! What a nice young man you are. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags

You can't remove fact tags just like that, you'll have to find a source instead. Also, please read WP:NPOV. Jobjörn (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new version, so i can't change the article because of the fact tag? I'm trying to improve the article. Also please read WP:AGF The TriZ (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You changed "many countries" to "most parts of the world". Hardly a change that would merit a removal of the citation challenge, is it? The phrase "it's the voice of the Syriac people" is quite possibly the most POV wording I've seen so far this year - I'm not even sure it is possible to have it in the article with tons of citation. By the way, if I didn't AGF I would've slapped an NPOV warning template on your talk page instead. I'm glad we could work this out in this manner instead! Jobjörn (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you an answer at my talkpage. The TriZ (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnison

Sorry if I sounded overly ... er, enthusiastic ... about the nag box on John Williams Gunnison, but I've gotten tired of articles being larded with garish boxes that accomplish nothing. It's easy to find articles with three or even four boxes on them!

When the boxes deal with subjective matters like "I think the references would look better in a different form, although I'm not going to actually do the work" (rather than justifiable reader warnings like NPOV or "this article deals with an ongoing situation") I remove them. Wikipedia is better for it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, and it seems that neither does the wikipedia community (considering that the templates exist and are used extensively). It is not that the references would look better that is the matter at hand (although they would), it is that anyone can make up a list of books as sources but inline citations are harder. Also, inline citation is better for the reader - if I'd like to read the source for a given statement, which of the sources listed in the references section should I look in? The maintenance templates (the nag boxes) are not about subjective matters, they are about maintenance and cleanup of the encyclopedia. While they might look annoying and ugly, in reality they only highlight that the articles are annoying and ugly. Good articles - articles rated B or better - does not have any nag boxes. When the nag boxes are gone from an article, it should be at least B-class.
But then again - there are 2,300,000 articles, so if I'll just leave the Gunnison article, I'll have another 2,299,999 articles to nag about - and fix, of course.
See ya! Jobjörn (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Data

Sorry about that, I thought it was some remnants of vandalism past. I did look at ma:Data though - no mention of it there, although I suppose it's on MA somewhere. Jobjörn (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I initially used Commodore because other trustworthy sources listed that as Data's rank in the book when he is in command of the ship. I haven't actually read Imzadi, but I notice that other people have also been reverting the article back to Commodore. That's why I added the in-source comment, to help avoid all the confusion. It might even be worth a mention on the discussion page too at some point. Here's the ma link. -- Macduff (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Sowden

Hi, I have re-added the page about George Sowden and also the links on the Memphis Group page to link through to George Sowden. If you feel so strongly that George Sowden is 'non-notable', then I respectfully ask you to delete the links to all the other founding members of the Memphis group, as well as the respective biographies. Both as a group and as individuals, these people defined Industrial Design in Italy and worldwide in the 1980's and 1990's, and are the key players in the "Post-Modern" design movement. If you feel otherwise, that is your subjective view, not an objective one.

A simple google search will show pages and pages worth of independent articles and biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.145.93 (talk • contribs)

The article on George Sowden has been deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Restoring it without going through Wikipedia:Deletion review makes the article valid for speedy deletion, as recreation of deleted content. If you feel so strongly that George Sowden is notable, then I respectfully ask that you follow Wikipedia procedures and proceed to raise your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Jobjörn (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the sources, and you're probably right - he is notable! I will not nominate the recreated article for deletion. However, please follow Wikipedia procedure next time. Cheers and happy editing! Jobjörn (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on The Hundred (Star Trek)

You forgot to tag the page. I took care of it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I blame Twinkle for this, I think. Thank you for your help! Jobjörn (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your Village Pump post

Re: this post Have you contacted the police in your jurisdiction or Hellekant's yet? Please at the very least consider doing so. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation can help with this situation, but they're contact info is here.--chaser - t 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have contacted the police. No, I don't think WMF can help either. Thank you for your concern Jobjörn (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the least, I admire your courage and your willingness to propogate the freedom of information, I'm personally behind you 100%. But remember to keep your personal safety above all else, even if it means that the information will not flow. Because a life is always more important than anything we could know. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampus Hellekant

I have declined speedy again. I'm afraid my interpretation of G7 is correct. If you have been contacted by the subject of the article then I would recommmend WP:BLP/N is the correct place to go to. At a read the assertions in the article are cited, and simply a request from the subject to delete it does not guarantee deletion I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not simply a request from the subject of an article, it is a convicted murderer that tracked down my home phone number and demanded that I delete the article. Jobjörn (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at my talk to centralise. Pedro :  Chat  11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Parker Bush Comment

I don't quite understand your comment that her opinion of Bush "is as relevant as the letter from Bush." (Almost) everyone has an opinion on any President of the United States and there's nothing about her that makes her opinion any more important than the average person's. She's not a political commentator, she doesn't work in politics, she hasn't written any books on Bush. Far fewer people, however, receive letters from the President of the United States congratulating them on their birthday, which does make it a notable, or at least interesting fact. I'm not a fan of George Bush, but WP:POV and WP:BLP are meant to prevent needlessly disparaging remarking, implications and insinuations in irrelevant contexts. I see no point in that comment other than "this person is famous and she doesn't like Bush." It has no encyclopedic value. Cheers, CP 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but you did do plenty of editing between when I left the comment and when I declared it a failed attempt, including an edit to the very article in question. With not even a little comment on either of our talk pages saying "I will think about this" or "I will have a reply shortly," or anything of that nature, I had no indication that you were thinking about a reply, or lacked the time to respond to me. I don't feel that it was unreasonable, especially since it's a WP:BLP issue, to come to the conclusion that I did (well, of course I wouldn't, but you know what I mean). Cheers, CP 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Well thanks...

You picked the wrong time to delete Bag of Suck. I was on a wikibreak... you need to check those things before you start wildly placing Speedy Delete tags on notable articles. Bag of Suck was a Highly notable video in the skateboarding world, released a few years back. I don't understand why you would delete the article, It obviously states that it was an important video in the develpment of Enjoi's future productions.

I guess it's too late now, but seeing that I am an experienced wikipedian (as are you), I beleive you should understand my disposition. Please try to avoid these problems in the future.

Thank you very much for your time.

 :: RatedR Leg of Lamb 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are such an experienced Wikipedian, you should know that you can recreate the article. With proper referencing it should avoid such a fate again. Also please note that I did not delete the article, Philippe did. Plrk (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet

Believe me, dude, it's constructive! The more people get to know about the big Evil, socialism, the better. I'm trying to save you from the most horrible thing that exists. Spare the world from communists, nazis, fascists, islamists, social democrats, feminists etc. Spare us from all forms of socialism. And for the love of God, vote for McCain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.64.83 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dude", I live in Sweden. I can't vote in the United States. Not that I would vote for McCain anyways. Plrk (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bra, da fattar du vad jag snackar om. Stackare! Kvar i helvetet? Jaja, nu fortsatter jag med min konstruktivitet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.64.83 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. Plrk (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Home article

Thanks for moving the Todo list. I missed that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ariel Rios

Hi Plrk, I just began this article, I wil continue some other time, I have to pick up my mom. Could you do me a favor? Can you place a sign that one or more people are still working on it? I dont know that one. Thanks a lot and have a great day.--Cefaro (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Plrk (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Ursvik runsten.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Ursvik runsten.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Ursvik runsten.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Plrk (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Benjamin Wechsler

Why was the Benjamin Wechsler page deleted? I have permission to link the page to a page that I host on my server with the image of the Ariel Sharon Letter. The Letter was placed on wikimedia and several editors tried to keep it up but it was eventually removed. --Petebertine (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because the article had no assertion of notability. If you can show multiple third party reliable sources demonstrating the notability of the subject, feel free to re-create the article. Regarding the letter and permission to link some page somewhere, I have no idea of what you are talking about. Plrk (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Regarding the page Lieutenant James Mason, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of an article about a real person, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the article claims that "he was, and still is, one of the best camouflage and concealment experts in the world", which is an assertion of notability. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears someone else did not agree with you? Plrk (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]