User talk:Mårten Berglund

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Not that you need the introduction... Cheers, BanyanTree 17:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

AfD nomination of Money as Debt
An editor has nominated Money as Debt, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (film)
You recently closed the debate on Articles_for_deletion/Money_as_Debt and deleted the article in question. I disagree with you, refering to the deletion guideline. Issues: Please explain to me why you still deleted the article, although the above-mentioned. Mårten Berglund (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Articles for deletion-debate should be moved to the /Old page before deletion according to the guideline.
 * I couldn't see there was rough consensus to delete the article from the debate. There were several keeps as well as several deletes, with strong arguments on both sides. According to the guideline, it should therefore be kept.
 * I think it was unfair of you to delete the article refering to reliable coverage, as I - which I mentioned - have started to collect references from academic journals and international newspapers and was not finished with that job.
 * Whether the article's subject is notable or not, is a highly subjective matter. I think it was a pity that you didn't listen to the deletion debate, which - as seen - couldn't reach consensus in that matter.


 * The first part is of no matter: a bot updates the overall deletion status of the past-5-day logs.
 * Consensus is not determined by raw vote tallies, but by the weight of the arguments presented. As an administrator, I'm tasked with evaluating the evidence and arguments presented through the lens of appropriate policies and guidelines. In this case, there were concerns about notability & neutrality. The "keep" arguments were as such:
 * an ad hominum rant from a banned suckpuppeteer, duly discounted 100%
 * a claim that the rationale for deletion is solely base on disliking the content of the movie, which didn't address the nomination concerns or any of the other deletion arguments
 * your arguments, based on minor article improvements, a purported film review in Anthropology Today, that stubs should be allowed to expand, and that there are x number of google hits for a certain search string
 * a claim that the Anthropology Today source is sufficient unto itself and there is "plenty of discussion elsewhere", but no citations of said discussion
 * I reject the notion that I "didn't listen to the deletion debate". If you want to count votes--which is what I don't do, but it can be informative--there were six deletes and three keeps (banned user=no valid input). The numbers alone are suggestive of the proper outcome, but in my opinion the keep arguments did not successfully address the arguments of those for deletion, and therefore my determination of policy/guideline-derived consensus was a clear "delete".


 * Now, all that said, the Anthropology Today is a potentially excellent source. However, its distribution limitations make evaluating the claim that it's a "review" (i.e., substantial coverage rather than incidental) difficult to ascertain. If you wish to email the article to me, I'd be happy to take a look. But, one source isn't enough...Notability requires demonstrable "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The long-standing history of WP:N is the necessity of multiple sources--and blogs generally do not count to this--that independently cover the topic.


 * Where does that lead us? You have a couple of options. I'd suggest one of these two possibilities:
 * If you believe I have not exercised my administrative judgment properly in closing the AfD, you may open a deletion review.
 * If you can demonstrate to me that there are sources out there to meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement, I'll happily restore the article into your userspace so that you can re-work it. This, of course, assumes that the Anthropology Today source is non-trivial in its relevant scope, and other coverage is as well, and you avoid further insults towards me.
 * I hope that this is a clear response. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was absolutely not my intention to insult you, if you felt so. Anyhow, thanks for the thorough reply! Two final (hopefully) questions then:
 * I may be stupid, but then I don't really understand the following sentences, from the deletion guide: "After 5 days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page. Depending on the backlog, it may sit there for several more days, during which it is still acceptable to add comments to the discussion." When I look at the /Old page, there seems to be just logs, pointing to the deletion debate pages, nothing seems really to have been moved there. The deletion guide text above seems to suggest that the deletion debate page should be moved to the old-page, where it will sit for a couple of days more. And I couldn't see that, that was what really happened.
 * If you could put the deleted article in my userspace, it'd be wonderful. For instance in a subdirectory under my user. Even though it was small, I spent a while on editing it, and didn't make any backup. I will try to collect new references thereafter.
 * Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For that first part, that whole thing is a totally automated series of transclusions and bot edits now. Articles for deletion/Old keeps track of logged AfDs that have passed 5 days and are ready for closing. There's really nothing for us to actively do regarding this, except removing a particular day's log to Archived delete debates when all discussions from that day are closed. Don't worry about this whole thing--I've been closing these things for a year now and know what's up.

I'll move the deleted content to User:Mårten Berglund/Money as Debt where you can work on it. Please do so, and keep in mind policies & guidelines I cited in my message as you improve it. Drop me a line if you want me to check on your improvements. &mdash; Scientizzle 03:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The Economist had in its latest issue an article that surprisingly well just reflects my experience from this debate we just had about my Money as Debt article: Inclusionists vs deletionists. So the whole question is not an obvious one. Mårten Berglund (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Progress?
User:Mårten Berglund/Money as Debt hasn't been edited since 03:39, March 14, 2008. Wikipedia's user page guidelines state that userspace is can be used for writing and improving articles, but "not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content". Such content may be subject to deletion. Do you intend to work on it? If not, I'll likely be back in a few days to delete the content. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I intend to work on it, but haven't had time. I'm not belonging to the Wikipedians who work here day and night... I'm doing stuff here a few times per year, haven't done much in the last six months. Please excuse me. Mårten Berglund (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy Accounting
Marten... I have put this message below on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Energy#AfD_nomination_of_Aeorads_and_Malpaso_Company

''I am having a problem with an editor coming into an article with a lot of complaints... which were patiently addressed... and who never the less seems to have an ax to grind about something in Energy Accounting. This person tagged the article inappropriately (in my view) ... this person has not participated much in editing the article and has made claims that the article is presenting information in biased or non neutral manner when it is sourced and documented. The current article is the result of consensus of people working on it over a period of time. The editor that has tagged the article apparently has multiple issues with the article that no one else does. No matter how this persons issues have been addressed so far, this editor continues to insist on his p.o.v. although the article does address the points of contention he is making, in a clear way. While the article may not be perfect, none are... it is pretty good. It address's historically and in modern times the concept of energy accounting with multiple links. Could multiple eyes go to this article and take a look at it?'' Thanks- skip sievert (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okey, thanks for letting me know. I think I have the corresponding problem with you... ;) Discussion continued on Talk:Energy_Accounting. Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point I added this to the article also http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis I would appreciate it if you could do some constructive work on the article instead of just complaining. I would also say that a redirect to Energy economics... is a really bad idea. Also the other editor involved now is going from article to article connected with this subject and making nonconstructive and mostly pov commentary that is not connected to making good articles. I think it would be better to get involved in helping rather than complaining... but that is your choice. I would add the other editor has not done any thing constructive ... or very little... mostly made a lot of accusations and unsubstantiated statements in a negative way... in my opinion. I am not a single purpose editor, I did not start any related articles to this subject... and work on many different articles. I go for good presentation and neutrality... or try to. skip sievert (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer discuss this on Talk:Energy_Accounting. See you there... Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)