User talk:Raven in Orbit/Archive 2

Peter Nordin
Hi Mats Halldin. Re: the template placed at the Peter Nordin site, it needs to be removed. The page content is similar to the content of many other pages on similarly notable people. I have initiated a discussion on the Biography project site about biographies verses profiles. (not resumes) Profiles are perfectly normal when describing notable people - sticking to information directly related to why they are notable. This discussion started before the contentious template was placed at the site; just after someone classified it as a biography (on the page's talk page). In any case, the contentious template was placed on the page by someone who seems to be following me around just now, looking for ways to irritate me. I'm sure he noticed that I think the biography classification is wrong (although not immediately problematic). Characterizing it as a resume that needs to be corrected, was just rude. I will remove it again, and hope you understand. --Rogerfgay 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on Talk:Peter Nordin
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note that User:Rogerfgay's removal of the proposed deletion template is perfectly cceptable as a means of disputing the proposal. Anyone that feels that the article should still be deleted should take it to articles for deletion. Cheers Kevin 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mm, yes, however he is not contributing to Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB, he is just adding templates to it and keeps reverting everyone who questions is contributions - if he only produced a simple explanation to his reverts I might even find them acceptable. In my edit comments I've been requesting more content to get the notability confirmed.  A single secondary source might be all that article needs, IMHO.  Let's hope his understanding of Wikipedia will improve before its to late for the article.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know that you have been mentioned at WP:ANI. Cheers Kevin 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Masada
You've said that I should provide "reliable sources." I have provided over a dozen reliable sources. No one's provided one contradictory source. Could you please inform me which of my sources is unreliable as they've been from the Int'l Herald Trib, Fox news, PBS, israeli academics and their published works. what else do I have to provide and why does the other side provide nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.65.42 (talk • contribs)


 * Answered on Talk:Masada.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mats, I am doing an informal mediationwith regards to this topic, please drop by here to contribute an opinion. Hopefully we can reach a compromise that will be amenable to all parties involved. Cheers--Cronholm144 04:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on User talk:Truth-evenifithurts
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion
Hi there, I noticed your message on Sergiodlarosa's Talk page about the possible copyvio, and I have nominated those images for deletion. If you want to add anything to the discussion, please go to the Images for deletion page. Thanks!--Margareta 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on Images and media for deletion/2007 July 12
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your attempts to mediate the dispute at Masada! ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thank you yourself!
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders is a commercial site as well
The New Seven Wonders website has generated millions for it directors, although is it a "non-profit" organisation. This is a typical scam, where you start a non-profit solely for salaries for the directors.

http://blogulate.com/content/is-the-new7wonders-a-scam

If you remove our Explore the Taj Mahal link, which was agreed YEARS AGO to be original, unique and containing materials not available IN Wikipedia itself, and was free access. It was agreed that Explore the Taj Mahal should be kept in.

Now, every new editor that comes along thinks THEIR idea of style and justice is correct, WITHOUT regard to any historical evidence.

In reality, it is self-righteous vandalism.

If you remove Explore the Taj Mahal, you must remove the "commercial" New Seven Wonders as well.

Regards, William Donelson


 * Answered on Talk:Taj Mahal
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl Axel Magnus Lindman‎
Hello Mats, and thank you for the welcome! I'm sorry that I transgressed the Manual of Style. I read it quite carefully but couldn't find any reference to image captions that shouldn't be bold or centered (perhaps I misunderstood!). After writing the article, I saw that there is one on Carl Lindman in the Swedish section of Wiki. It's a great pity that the search function only operates in one language - perhaps the programmers can make it optional! Thanks again Raasgat 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on User talk:Raasgat
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki editing
Hi there,

Yeah, still a bit new around here, so thanks for visiting my talk page. I wasn't sure to add the stub on that page or to add it to talk page but you cleared it up. Good to know you here and thanks for your help. Uranometria 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't mention it, just drop your questions here whenever you feel like.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi
Hi. Why did you delete my Time's person of the year succession box for Mahatma Gandhi? it's been a part of a project i've been working on. --Captain Proton 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lost in a vandal revert. no prob though, I fixed it.--Cronholm144 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Right, I'm sorry about it. I was reverting a case of vandalism preceding your edit and reverted your edit by mistake.  As you can see in the article history Cronholm144 restored your edit.  I'll try to be more careful in the future.
 * Happy editing
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alan Gordon & William Shepherd
Mats

Alan Gordon is the professional name of Alan Pryke and William Shepherd is the professional name of Peter Etherden (cf George Orwell/Eric Blair etc). I have been using mine for 25 years and Alan his for the past ten years or so. You did an excellent edit of the Alan Pryke article to bring it into line with wikipedia policy. I had really just taken one of the William Shepherd blog entries from last year and tidied it up. Quite sensibly you cut back the stuff that did not relate directly to the article but I felt it deserved a link but perhaps this starts to approach some Wikipedia policy red lines...where does fact end and opinion begin etc.

The William Shepherd article was taken direct from the resume I have up on the website for a few years...plus a little update and clean-up. It could do with the same treatment as the Alan Gordon article...ie taking links and references etc. out of the body of the article and putting them in a separate section as you seemed to be thinking of doing.

Anyway hope that helps. I am happy to take your advice on how to proceed. For the moment I am going to bed. Don't you ever sleep?

Peter Etherden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteretherden (talk • contribs)


 * Well, good morning both of you,
 * OK, I'm not sure why, but I believe you. However, Wikipedia is not a billboard and I never did like people who use it as such.  Please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM.
 * Anyway, I removed Alan Gordon (radio journalist) and William N. Shepherd from Copyright problems/2007 July 21/Articles assuming they are not copyvios but replaced the tags in those article with others saying these articles are 'only' self-promotional. Even if the copyright is not an issue, you two still need to show the articles are notable by finding secondary sources.
 * Thank you
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hej Mats

Seems I need to spend some time with the reading list. It's actually pretty hard to get into what Wikipedia is about as a newcomer without the sort of 'mentoring' you're giving so it's actually much appreciated.

Peter


 * Hejsan Peter,
 * Well, Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view and as both of you are journalists I don't think I have to explain why you are not supposed to write articles about yourselves. If you insist both of you are notable enough for an encyclopaedia, you should absolutely find some secondary and reliable sources and make sure those articles conform to these sources.  Some editors of autobiographies actually get away with such ambitions, but this is typically not because of their own claims.  So, in short, don't cite yourselves!
 * Maybe you should find some other subjects to write about? Politics of Sweden needs a lot of attention.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hej Mats

I received this email from Alan Pryke: 'Mats is doing a great job. Good to see that Wiki's credibility has been built up on academic-style rules.If I had time, I'd dig up a host of references, but first I'd have to read the rules/definitions governing 'primary', 'secondary' etc references. Time is a luxury I can't lavish just to get my name on Wiki. Incidentally, if I do get round to it, then I'd prefer to appear under my real name.I appreciate your efforts to get my name and craft out into the cyber world of learning, but until I can provide the required substance, I'd prefer it if you withdrew any Alan Gordon copy from Wiki.'

My reply was : 'There is a programme on BBC Radio4 tomorrow Tuesday 24/7 at 1130 (Clive James I think) about Wikipedia. You might care to pick it up as a download some time later this week. Recently wikipedia has been coming under very heavy attack and there is a risk of it spiralling out of control. I emailed these remarks to a colleague last week: 'I have few illusions that the wikipedia model will survive in the long term except by being swamped by trivia (one way the elites deal with threats to their hegemony) but Larry Sanger (Wikipedia's founder) is trying to improve on the academic model with his Citizendium...a sort of wikipedia with editors that seeks to regulate the anonymity & anarchy' of wikipedia mark I. I wish him well.' I'd be interested in your comments.'

Otherwise please remove the Alan Gordon article as I assume what will take me half an hour to figure out, you can probably do in ten seconds. Otherwise I'll do it.

I will persevere with the William Shepherd article for the moment as its a good learning experience and I believe in the wikipedia concept having found it very useful on a number of occasions myself.

Best wishes Peter

PS. I think this should be signatured as I signed in before sending it...but maybe not...I'll get better at this.

" at the beginning of a line (or one or several " : ").   tag at the top of Alan Gordon (radio journalist). Articles for deletion/Alan Gordon (radio journalist) page by adding   ~  to it. (cat=B for biographies)
 * Hej igen,
 * To sign your posts, just type four tildes (" ~ ") (remember to login). To get a line-break, just add "
 * Sorry for not staying tuned here, I've been working like 11 hours per day and had little time and energy for Wikipedia.
 * I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia and I can't delete articles. Even if I would be, I believe I would have to add the article for WP:AFD.  If you think Alan Gordon (radio journalist) should be deleted, you will have to nominate it for deletion.  The process is described at Articles for deletion and in brief contains the following steps:
 * Insert the
 * Create the
 * If you want to keep William N. Shepherd, please add some secondary references to it.
 * Concerning Citizendium: I think of myself as an exclusionist and wouldn't miss all the stubs about retired bands, athletes, etcetera. However, to my knowledge (and citing a source I can't remember), Citizendium is a cathedral where Wikipedia is a market place (i.e. top-down and vice versa).  With the former you get a guaranteed quality level but few articles, with the latter you get a lot of content but tonnes of crap.  I can't imaging contributing to a wiki where only expert are invited (I would be both excluded from it and bored to death about it for sure).  On EB (and Nationalencyklopedin) you get tonnes of short articles on obscure subjects no one will ever be happy with.  On Wikipedia you get featured content experts would never write about.
 * Finally, I'm glad to note clean-up efforts on Wikipedia contribute to the credibility of the encyclopaedia. The backlog will hopefully be history before soon.
 * Feel free to e-mail me at Special:Emailuser/Mats_Halldin if you wish (and are logged in)
 * Med vänliga hälsningar
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning my talk page
Hi, Is it a rule that I can't delete old comments on my own talk page? I wanted to delete old messages, so I blanked part of it. Uranometria 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thx, that's clearer now Uranometria 02:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for bot flag on sv.wikiquote
Hello,

I posted a request for a bot flag on Wikiquote:Bybrunnen a while ago. However it is as of yet still unanswered, but as you're a bureaucrat there could you please check it? I don't really know the procedures for requesting a bot flag there either so maybe I didn't post it at the right place, or it doesn't need a community approval but just a bureaucrat one,...? in short I don't know yeah ;)

Thanks for your help!

Chtit draco 08:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Voila,
 * You are now a bot on the Swedish Wikiquote.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Chtit draco 11:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Västerbron
Hi Mats,

you have written the Wiki-Västerbron-article. In the history-section you wrote about the international competition with 72 different designs. My grandfather Wilhelm Büning (1881-1958) got the 1.Price on an international competition for a bridge over the Mälar-sea. I suppose that it was for the Västerbron-bridge. Are you able to research this fact?

Informations to Wilhelm Büning in German:
 * Wilhelm Büning im Internet


 * Wilhelm Büning in Wikipedia Deutsch

Please answer me on richard.buening(at)t-online.de

Thanks Richard Büning 84.147.247.241 11:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 84.147.247.241 11:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Earth
The issue has never been the use of my blog as references but Earth's actions in deleting my many many references. It took a lot of effort to find these refences. In fact, I don't mind people deleting my words, but I I am really angry if my references were deleted without any valid reason. And these references does not include my blog.

My second request was due to the section curruption as a result of his attempt at removing some references, which are certainly not my blog.

This technique is also used to confuse you on this blog issue. He mixed up sections on Sabah's budgetery descriptions with my charge of Vandalism against Earth, by making a completely new topic "Sabah Budget Discriminatory" to be a sub-topic of Vandalism reporting. It is not a question of mistake because it takes a lot of effort to insert the equal signs at both ends of the titles.

My second VAndalism complaint against Earth, Earth has made a "sports" subsection in the "notable Sabahan" section. Earlier, he made "notable Sabahan" section disapper". In additiion to this complain, I raised the issue of deleting blogs which are used as external references only, not for supporting arguments. Earth deleted one in the external references section.

I also used my blog to show a picture which I took to prove my point. I believe this is better than uploading this picture but I may consider uploading pictures to wikipedia for everyone to see.

In my first VAndalism complaint against Earth, he kept on deleting entire paragraphs including published references, based on filmsiest charges such as irrelevant or repetitive, which I don't accept.

Another one, is the deletion of references because I put forward an opinion. "Notable People" sections are about notable people, not average people. Their accomplishments must be important enough to justify their inclusions. The only way we can compare is by comparing references on other similar people in the geography under consideration. In this case, Sabah, and because of the accomplishment, the whole nation, Malaysia.

I don't mind anybody subsitituting the expletives that I use to notable people. Intead of the greatest, put "most notorious", but deleting entire paragrapsh, including important citations of books and online-newspapers and journals, by using the "undo" is just plain vandalism. Earth must be taught a lesson.

Deleting expletives in "notable section" to the point of making him an ordinary person, is also pointless because people don't know the significance of that "notable person".Othmanskn (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered on Talk:Sabah.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vädersolstavlan
Hi - I'm having a look now. I'll probably fiddle with it off and on over the day. Do let me know if I've accidentally altered the meaning of what you have written. Where I'm not sure of exactly what is meant, I'll leave questions on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Vädersolstavlan 2
The article looks well-designed graphically and comprehensive to say the least. However, I'm afraid I'm a bit busy at the moment and can't offer a proper review. I notice you've approached several other editors, so I expect one (or more) of them will be able to help you. Good luck with the article, and hopefully I can be of more assistance in the future. – Scartol  •  Tok  11:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mats. I'm also a bit over-loaded but will try in a few days. I'll ping another editor I know is interested in painting. Marskell (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the trouble anyway, I might be plaguing you with other articles in the future. *Grin*
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed you read through Giant Otter. Thank you. It should be at FAC soon. Marskell (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did, that's how I discovered the peer review page :). Giant otter should absolutely be a FA, keep it up.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took Giant Otter to FAC, here; any comments welcome.
 * I am going to try to copyedit your article, but I keep making promises to people that take weeks. So I hope you don't mind if I just pick at it with a couple of edits every few days. Marskell (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Take your time, Vädersolstavlan has been around for a year or so, so it can wait. I'd might even prefer to see you create articles like Giant Otter instead.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proust
Mats. I refer to your edit of the Proust article on 14 January. If you read the biographies you will find that there is some evidence to support the allegations of 70.108.60.150, no matter how outlandish they sound. I say this with regret, being an admirer of Proust's writings, if not of some aspects of his personal life. However, I think you would be entirely within your rights to require 70.108.60.150 to cite his sources. His one other edit is worth looking at too. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Hi,
 * You are probably right, I should have asked for a source rather than calling it "drivel". I can't say I know a lot about Proust, but I remember him being described as a hypochondriac, so I'm easily convinced regarding odd description of that author.  However, the addition in question certainly did require a citation:


 * It is also said that Proust, who, for a time owned a brothel, would enjoy watching young male prostitutes engaging in their trade. It is also said, however, that watching hungry caged rats fight each other to the death or torturing them with hatpins would never fail to bring him to orgasm.


 * BTW, the second edit from this anon has been reverted.
 * Thanks for keeping an eye on the wiki
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a heartfelt thanks and an offer of any future support (if needed) for your de-trivializing efforts at the Proust article. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks yourself. May the wiki be with you!
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wassily Kandinsky
hello Mats you have deleted the ex. link to the site http://www.wassilykandinsky.net/ ?\ Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvoechnik (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I cleaned-up the external links section per Links normally to be avoided: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
 * Having had a second look at that site, I must admit I was a bit hard on that link - I could have left it in the article - there are many artworks there not available in the Wikipedia article. I'm sorry about it, a mistake from my part, feel free to add it back again, but please supply an argument for adding the link when you do so.
 * However, I had a look at Alexander Deyneka, and I would like to invite you to have a look Wikipedia's policies on external links. Normally, external links are supposed to be limited to a minimum, i.e. those "most relevant and helpful", and only be added to the "External links" section at the bottom of the page.  As the Deyneka article is now it looks more like a link repository (or even link spam) than an article.
 * Happy editing
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I edited both links, please look.
 * In the main argument for the quality of these two sites I can say that they represented the largest number of paintings by artists
 * Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvoechnik (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, that's fine. However, that is not what I meant.  When you add external links to articles (and basically every time you edit) you should supply an edit summary explaining why the link you add is necessary.
 * Thanks for your time and for editing
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * understand! next time all will be OK! ^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvoechnik (talk • contribs) 12:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

 * Cool! It was originally meant to be just a stub. :) Thanks for notifying.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:United State Naval Academy Logo-sports.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:United State Naval Academy Logo-sports.gif. 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 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 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) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, I sure where to answer to this, so I just drop this here. I cleaned-up that GIF on request.  However, I don't no anything about neither the image or its subject, so I don't have an opinion about its fair use rationale.
 * Wiki-World, happy editing!
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
You have been granted with rollback permission. For more information, please refer to this page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, well, thank you! I might find it useful I guess.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Page restored
Indeed, please let me know if you need anything else. :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll let you know if the clowns are plaguing me too. :)
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive Dissonance
How long will the adjustments need to wait on the talk page? I think this is an extremely poor article. Is there any way to get Cognitive Dissonance included in Dialectic somewhere and then make a note in this article to disentangle the two concepts? The entire article is supported by statements with a lack of citation. What proof will be required to have Cognitive Dissonance regarded as a Dialectic Tool?

MicrocreditSA (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to wait at all, just edit the article. If you edit the article and other contributors are having objections, then, you need to discuss it.  But if what you want to do is discuss the article, please do it on the talk page, not in the article itself.  See Talk page for more information.  Personally, I now very little about the subject, so I can't take part in that discussion.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I will take a look at it later MicrocreditSA (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Vårbyfjärden, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Holy shit! Thanks for notifying me.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify Canadian Government edit
Mats,

Thanks for the removal from wiki warning about external links being considered spam. I would like to avoid removal in that it's my first day. I'm writing you for a little clarification. I think my link add in the case of the Canadian Government is relevant external web related editorial, directing people who might not otherwise be aware of such content.

Spamming to me would imply unrelated useless information. While some may see the show It`s Your Government as useless, the fact remains that it is quite relevant. The show is all about the Canadian Government and the link I included made this very clear.

Just so that you know, I'm not looking for improvements in search engine ranking which you seem to see as my only motivation. I merely thought it might be relevant data for wikipedia.

Please respond so that I can understand how you see it. I'm always open to constructive criticism.

Robbiejackson (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered on User talk:Robbiejackson
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:EL, only external links directly related to the article subject should be included. Ichannel is apparently not directly related to either Government of Canada‎, Invention‎, Any Day Now (TV series), Health‎, Intelligence‎, or Television in Canada‎. So, adding links to sites you maintain in every second article on Wikipedia is spamming.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'll notice, Any Day Now has a second link to a television provider that offers the show. Merely helpful information for those interested in viewing this particular show, directed to an internal link dedicated to this show.

I was removed from the intelligence section by someone who claimed that ichannel was not dedicated to intelligence, merely a smattering of different subjects claiming to be intelligent. Probably fair, and funny. Not contested.

The link I included to the Government of Canada was to an internal ichannel page about a show that discusses government. As I have already mentioned, I think this is relevant. The show is all about the inner workings of the Canadian Government.

My health post was also about a show related to health. This post was also removed. I did not replace it. I did as the complaint suggested, posted my comments in the talk page. If I were a spammer, would I not just replace it?

In the case of Television in Canada, I am a webmaster who represents a small market television station, Stornoway communications. Is this not relevant to Canadian Television, in that the little guy can survive in the world of big business. Isn't this what the internet is all about.

Please make a relevant point soon, or I am going to have to assume you just don't like me and want to call me names:)

Robbiejackson (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles can't include links to every website and TV-channel offering information about a wide range of topics. Links to ichannel are appropriate in an article about ichannel as it is directly related to the article topic in that case.  Most channel will include information about health; even Swedish channels give information about the Canadian government; etc, etc.  Just imagine what George W. Bush would look like if external links to sites offering information about him would be included there.  Please read WP:COI and WP:EL.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, well made in the case of George Bush. I appreciate you making it. In this case all you need to do is revert the changes in the case of Canadian Television. Stornoway is a legitimate market player in the Canadian television industry and the information there is relevant to that article. How's that for reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiejackson (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, ichannel is (as far as I can tell) not even mentioned in Television in Canada. Before adding external links to whatever site in any article, please ask yourself if the article need the links.  To what extent does the link contribute to the content of the article?  Having just discovered ichannel, I propose that you start by expanding that article.  Lastly, I'm not trying to manifest my personal opinions -- I actually live very far from Canada, and I don't even have an opinion about you and the project you represent -- What I'm trying to do is to maintain Wikipedia guidlines and standards.  I've been removing external links and trivia information from -- just to mention a few -- Marcel Proust, Freestyle Motocross, British Columbia.
 * Its getting late in Stockholm and I'm going to bed soon. Wikipedia is large; there are many things needing attention around.  I'm certain you are a good person, please find another topic to edit.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I will start with Canadian Television and good or bad is irrelevant here. What's important is good for Wikipedia. I will revert my changes and remove the external link. I too am a champion of the internet and it's guidelines, which is why I communicate with people I don't know who wear strange hats in strange lands:) Thank you for your very long-winded lesson.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiejackson (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY ZSERO
I am new to Wikipedia and wished to make some valuable contributions to various articles. I was especially concerned about some anti-Semitic material in the Semicha article which states that Semicha was broken and no longer has an unbroken succession to present day. The Roman Catholic Church repeatedly boasts in their articles that their Apostolic Succession (the Christian alternative to Semicha) was never broken and still retains an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present day. HOWEVER there is no more historical proof of this then there is for an unbroken Jewish Semicha. As a matter of fact there are MORE indications of an unbroken chain of Semicha then their is for Roman Cathoic Apostolic Succession. I quoted two rabbinical sources and because of the publishing house I quoted those particular books were printed by Zsero came in and deleted them. I put it back on and again he deleted them. So I gave up. Next I saw a word that need an apostrophe and added it. Zsero came in and reverted it. I put back the apostrophe. Zsero reverted it. I put it back, he reverted it. Finally I told him to forget it I surrendered (although I had quoted an authoritive source stating the apostrophe was warranted in this case). I next tried to correct a spelling error. he reverted it. Suspicious I had a cyber stalker I decided to test him. I went to the Halaka article and made a change and then undid the change BEFORE I hit the submit button. Therefore the history of the Article showed I made a change but when looking at the history there in reality was no change at all to be observed. Zsero came in AND REVERTED MY EDIT THAT HAD NO CHANGE IN IT WHATSOEVER!!! Zsero cannot claim he reverted it because I edited an error or that I added something wrong. All he can say is the obvious...he edited it just because it was submitted by ME. This is harassment, vandalism, and cyber stalking. I next went to various unrelated articles making "NO CHANGE edits" and he has reverted EVERY "NO CHANGE edit" I have made. There is NOT ONE SINGLE THING I HAVE OR CAN EDIT, ADD, OR SUBTRACT that he will not revert. I have not been able to add as much as a period or an apostrophe that he doesn't go straight there and revert it. I have left messages in his talk page and he immediately reverts them.This individual is a problem that needs to be permanently blocked from harassing editors trying to add beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Please advise as how this should be handeled. Thank you very much,

RebCoh (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, you are just null editing articles to provoke people. Please stop!
 * / 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I null edited to prove that Zsero was reverting my edits without purpose.

By the way...why do you keep reverting my talk page?

RebCoh (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider my letter to Zsero
I wrote:

Zsero, You have persisted in vigorous editing of anything and EVERYTHING that I have attempted to contribute to Wikipedia. You have stooped so low as to repeatedly revert a simple little apostrophe (') although I gave credible reason for its inclusion. I have been unable to do ANYTHING because of your obsessive compulsive behavior. You have stalked me to EVERY site I have attempted to visit. On one discussion page I wrote something and later realized I knew not enough about the subject to comment on it so I reverted my own contribution myself. You then attempted to revert my own reversion of my own edit. You have printed online libel concerning a certain Rabbi I quoted. You have stalked me like sociopath. I am unable to contribute even an apostrophe or comment.

So I decided to test you. On paper I typed a statement as to what type of a test I was going to perform and why. To this I signed my name before a Notary Public (a neighbor who is an attorney) and wrote the time of signature beside my name. I later went online and went to the article entitled "Halacha." I entered the editing room but I MADE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER!!!!! The history of the article showed I had been in the editing room but showed no changes made. You took the bait. You went into that article and YOU REVERTED SOMETHING I NEVER EVEN EDITED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

What will be your claim for doing this? There is but ONE answer...HARASSMENT!!!

This is pure and simple VANDALISM!!!!

I suggest you stop your childish behavior immediately.

RebCoh (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My Apology
I am very sorry to have become disruptive but if I may I would like to explain my position. This is my very first attempt to join Wikipedia. My first contribution was a brief quote from a Rabbi which was immediately reverted. My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. My anger prompted me to make various comments and childish taunts. By the way, my "Apostrophe Hater" comment was meant as a joke. Obviously I do not believe the world is going to come to an end because of Apostrophe's or that Einstein quoted such. It was an attempt to turn a war into humor. To this very day I am unable to make a SINGLE contribution to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I find this to be a useless place where just anyone off the streets can come in and edit, revert, and take out there frustrations on other attempting editors. I will not back to Wikipedia. RebCoh (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vädersolstavlan (ter)
Hello! I've started reviewing Vädersolstavlan. Interesting, informative, well-written, beautifully illustrated, nicely referenced: of course it's a good article, but it's also a really good article. I have a few minor quibbles about extra wikilinks. For WP:FAC I'd like to see a bit more explanation in a couple of places - I'll leave the notes for that too - but I expect to mark it passed tomorrow when I've had another chance to read it aloud (my ear often catches little things my eye misses). Thank you so much for contributing something this fascinating! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Please take your time.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of project tags
Saw your removal on Talk:Vasa (ship) and have brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Museums. Your input is requested since you removed the tag. -MBK004 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disregard this message. Internal project discussion has proven you are correct. Sorry for bothering you. -MBK004 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problems, happy editing.
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Postmodernism Intro section
Hi, I'm new the Wiki community so forgive me if I'm breaking protocol. I'm not sure if you wrote the introduction to the Postmodernism page, but I believe one of the claims is either wrong or mis-cited.

I've found no evidence to support the claim that "The term [postmodernism] was used as early as 1914 in an article in The Hibbert Journal written by J.M.Thompson." (J.M.Thompson, The Hibbert Journal Vol XII No.4 July 1914 p.733). The journal volume is available at Archive.org, but no such article or reference exists. Perhaps you took this reference from another book or article, or simply mis-transcribed a number? I'm an academic and would just like to verify the claim. please contact me w/ any verification info.Mahinm (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia!
 * I certainly didn't write the introduction to that article -- my shortcomings in English prevent me from any such contributions.
 * However, I quickly Googled on that reference and I find several pages mentioning it (Wikipedia mirrors not included). Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so, to rework the introduction of that article, I suggest you propose the changes on the talk page (just like you did before you reverted yourself) and then edit the article accordingly.  If/when anyone is having objections, then discuss the matter on the talk page.
 * Hope it helped, just let me know if I can help you in anyway
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raven You're absolutely right. I was able to confirm the orginal citation- double checked my research and discovered I misread the numerals myself. That was foolish. Sorry for wasting your time, and keep on wiki-ing.Mahinm (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OWB
Thank you for your comment there! Although as my life is full of foolishness I don't feel very wise; I'm only good at dispensing windy advice for others. While I don't know what happened at se:, I find it helpful to universalize conflict: let some time go by, back up a step and look at it in a bigger context. Human life is impossible without conflict, which is neither good nor bad--it just is: and reasonable people disagree all the time. And unreasonable people are also part of the universal flow; as one departs, another arrives. Anyway thanks, it always pleases me when people notice that page. :) Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, yes, sometimes conflicts can contribute to a dialogue. Anyway, that page is full of wisdom -- be proud over it; I'll certainly return to it.
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

QlikTech Article
Hello Raven, I need help writing an article for the company QlikTech and its product QlikView. QlikView is a Business Intelligence solution with increasing relevance in this market. I have read already published articles of BI companies (i.e. MicroStrategy) and I can't see a difference between them and my article, but no matter how, it was deleted. Since this is my first article maybe there is something I haven't noticed yet. I would be more than happy to listen to any suggestions. Thank you, --Juan.martin (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Spam is spam is spam! And Wikipedia is not a billboard.  Please stop creating articles about non-notable companies and have a look at WP:COI.  The previous version of this article has been deleted.  If you didn't write it, how come you know about its content?  What is the difference between advertising QlikTech and "talking" about its products?  To sum up, you don't need help writing that article; you need another platform.
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Raven, this is the second version of the article, the first one has been deleted too. I'm trying to contribute to the community by writing about this company which develops a Business Intelligence solution. Please check the references in my article. These are provided by two of the most well-known independent secondary sources for assessing Business Intelligence companies: IDC and Gartner.

Please let me tell you there are lots of articles about Business Intelligence companies in Wikipedia. I would like to know why articles such as MicroStrategy and Cognos are not deleted. Again, thank you very much for your help. --Juan.martin (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to Smithsonian Archives
Raven, Your assessment of a series of links by Mcdanielm (talk) on various artists' pages (e.g., Frank Stella) to the Smithsonian Archives as spam seems a bit hasty. The handful that I have looked at so far appear to be extensive and unique online resources for letters and other artifacts, as well as history and biographical data about the artist. Mhjohns (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Artist Papers (links to aaa.si.edu)
Raven, All of the links I've posted either go to an on-line collection of the artist's papers (digital images of letters they've written, sketchbooks, and photos) or a finding aid (detailed descriptions of the artist's papers and what's included there in) for those papers. It's an avenue to more, complete information, from the artist him of herself. Mcdanielm (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Mcdanielm


 * OK guys, sorry about any problems I've caused. It looks like Mhjohns have reverted all my reverts, so this case should be history by now.  I quickly noticed Mcdanielm have added dozens of links -- and virtually only that -- since he/she created the user account.  It really looks like pure spamming.  Per WP:EL, consider including the information on Smithonian into the articles instead of just adding a link.  Anyway, if there is a consensus about including these links into a lot of articles, I suggest you create a template for the purpose.  See Template:Wikitravel for an example.
 * Happy editing
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

history of money
Check this.. The passage is here since 2005. Or even older, it was moved from money. The passage has been reverted the last week. Imagine how many people read and approved the passage, until reverted the last week by someone. Who is the controversial?


 * OK, sorry for any inconvenience, apparently I misunderstood your edit. It could have been avoided if you'd used an edit summary to explain you restored a deleted section.
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you are welcome, I ll follow for now on your advise and use "restored deleted section" when appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I have deleted the content again. Just because it was there for a long time, does not necessarily mean it should stay there. It was, in fact, unsourced: the only sources given in that whole text were a blog, and a tv episode. It does not belong here. Furthermore, look at Xicsies' history...he has been very tendentious in that page and the page on the number of the beast. It is wise to take what he says with a few grains of salt. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Carl,
 * Obviously that section is needing some major clean-up before being reintroduced. I don't know enough about the article subject to determine if content is correct or not, so I will have to leave it up to others to fix it.
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think many people fixed it for 3 years now. Now carl wants to delete it, simply because he disagrees with the translation of the word "psefisato" of the bible. In any case, remove the translation carl, not all the etymology passage!!!!


 * Xicsies,
 * No, erroneous content should be removed -- just adding in-line templates is not enough. If you want to keep that section, please rework it first.  You could do this on a subpage to your user page.
 * / 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's no way that is staying on the page. There is a respectable etymology section there, which I actually think should be entirely removed, because the etymology of money should be discussed on money, not history of money. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

throwing out the baby with the bathwater
After making dozens of links in Wikipedia over the past 10 years without any problems whatsoever, I made one single link to a blog, not knowing that was against the rules. It was rightly taken down. Then an editor (Irishguy) decided to take down every single link I ever made without even looking at them. That editor was completely discredited and no longer has anything to do with Wikipedia. I, and dozens of others, are simply fixing his overzealous mistakes.

You have done the same thing. You apparently didn't look at any of the links you took down.

Paul Krassner, one of the most famous journalists in America, wrote an article about the things left out of Chicago 10. I posted a link to the article on the Borat page. How is that spam? I didn't write it. No hint of COI. You took it down. Please explain.

Jim Channon is the author of the First Earth Battalion Manual. He gave me a copy of the PDF with the specific purpose of distributing it for free. The First Earth Battalion page on Wikipedia DIDN'T HAVE A COPY OF THE MANUAL. I posted a link to it. Of obvious use to the readers. How is that spam? I didn't write it. No hint of COI. How are you helping the readers by taking down the very thing they're looking for? Please explain.

I'm the editor of the Los Angeles Free Press, so there is in fact an apparent COI concerning the Los Angeles Free Press page, but all I did was post a link to the Los Angeles Free Press. How is that spam? People looking up the Los Angeles Free Press would obviously be interested in finding the Los Angeles Free Press. Instead of removing the link, if all it needs is a third party to validate it, how about validating it and putting it back?

I could go on and on. Just because something has the appearance of potentially being spam doesn't make it so.

You removed all those links for no other reason than they're all archived in the same place without any consideration as to whether they contained information vital to the page that wasn't included in the actual text, including interviews with filmmakers that were published in totally legitimate publications but which don't happen to have those articles up on their websites but which only appear in my archive.

Please actually look at the interview with Godfrey Reggio from the LA Weekly, which has been up for more than five years, and tell me honestly that people looking up his films wouldn't want to know the information included. Or the interview with Jonathan Demme from Movieline magazine.

You've got to take these things on a case by case basis. Just because spammers link to themselves doesn't mean everyone who links to themselves is a spammer. Invalid logic, just like "all salmon are fish therefore all fish are salmon." I am NOT a spammer and resent being called one. Those links have been up there for years and were removed in the first place by an overzealous editor who was hated so much he ended up leaving wikipedia forever, all for doing precisely what you just did. I can't take up the argument with him but I can sure take it up with you.

I believe these were thoughtless edits that need to be reexamined.

Noahveil (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your blog and that site can't reasonably be directly related to all those articles. If your links are included there, BBC etc will have to be included in EVERY article ever started. Imagine what Paris Hilton would look like if everyone offering information about her would be included there. If the pages you are linking to contain information of interest to the article consider developing the article by using using those pages as references. Undoubtedly, this applies to you.
 * Yes, per External links you are a spammer; and no, those links should not be in every second article on Wikipedia.
 * Links normally to be avoided #13: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest: there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
 * Besides, you must have added hundreds of external links (and in contrast only made a few edits of articles content). So, no, of course I didn't read every pseudo-interview you have linked to.
 * (I've had a long day, so sorry if I forgot to include some politeness here. I'm sure you are not a bad person.)
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Encyclopedia links
Hey, Raven in Orbit This is my first time using the User talk, so please excuse any etiquette blunders. Yes I am adding a number of links to the Canadian Encyclopedia (CE), but they are all absolutely on topic. A professor friend complained to me that her students just went to Wiki to look up a Canadian author and no further. As a Canadian this irritated a bit, but more than that, as someone that whose job it is to sift and find information on the online and beyond, I know that information should be a web (if your intention is to make information available to all, and not protect market share). Wikipedia has become THE information portal and if it does not allow other open, free, reliable, unbiased information sites to link off its pages then it will not be supporting the free flow of information, but hoarding market share. To approach "knowing" something you need to use many different sources. Wiki should not be about stranggling other sources, but promoting them.

Do we want to be Microsoft or Google? Because Wiki is now the elephant in the room.

I am new to Wiki and so if my link edits should be done differently, please let me know. I have been adding a link to the CE itself in each link, I thought it looked more professional (it is graphicly better blue-black-blue) and it was a common style, but if this reeks of spamming, I would happily stop. I have been trying to assess the usefulness of the links on the link list and then place my link appropriately, but again I am new to Wiki, so please let me know if my placements suggest bias. If I misunderstand the Wiki philosophy please tell me how? Thanks for your interest Noahand (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered on User talk:Noahand.
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia
Hello Raven in Orbit, I think I am doing this right now. Thanks for the heads up. Although I work with computers, play on computers, access most of my news and information with computers, I don't actually like computers, and so when I encounter a new system on the computer (in this cases the Wiki system) I never spend enough time immersed in the system before I start poking around, sorry.

I reviewed your E. D. Blodgett link, and I can see that this type of edit brings to Wiki the connectivity that is so important, while not seeming to be just links dropped in. I will try to keep that in mind in my future edits.

Thanks for furthering my Wiki education Noahand (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered on User talk:Noahand
 * / Raven in Orbit (t|c) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Stockholmsgator
Hej, kan du inte glömma peddotramset nu och komma tillbaka till svwp och skriva alla fina gatuartiklar om Stockholm där också? Du är saknad. /Grillo (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not bring it up where my case was discussed on that wiki?
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Johannes Vermeer
This is an explination for my recent edit. I went through the history of those vandals you where fighting, and came to the conslusion that some may have slipped through. so I found the page that was prior to all that crap and switched it back, only to find that you did a great job (and only one thing was different). long story short, my edit was useless after all, and kutos on your vandal fighting.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Actually, I was wondering what that edit was about.
 * Happy editing
 * / Raven in Orbit (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Circus article
Hey, Raven - clearly this guy SimplyCircus just wants to rant since he seems unwilling to make any constructive edits. We've both stated our positions pretty clearly. I don't intend to reply to him since I feel he is wasting my time at this point. I'll watch the talk page, but if you'd like me to weigh in on something just shoot me a note. I'll revert his edits if he reinserts his website links as EL's. Interesting you're in Sweden - I'm in US-Virginia. It's great that Wiki collaboration is so worldwide. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a last attempt (again) to make him contribute to Wikipedia. Lets hope he'll understand why anyone can edit this place.  However, I don't think there is any risk of edits wars in this case.
 * Yes, without geeks from various corners there'd be no freaky contributions around. :)
 * / Raven in Orbit (t|c) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: wikipedia is not a joke
What are you talking about? I did no such thing. Bobisbob (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, sorry about it. I removed images from both Anus and Penis and I apparently mixed various contributors up.
 * / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Impersonator on svwp?
Hi, is this you? Because it surely doesn't sound like it, and I hope it's not... It would be great if you could confirm that it isn't... /Grillo (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's me, and, yes, I'm still furious.
 * / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 18:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)