User talk:Raven in Orbit

Welcome to my talk page. New entries at bottom.

/Mats

Archives

• Archive 1, December 2006 - June 2007
• Archive 2, July 2007 -

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!

On 6 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willem Boy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Pictured spot too! Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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 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) 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 Wikipedia: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!

On February 23, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vårbyfjärden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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#Museum_Ships. 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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Smithonian links

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.[1]. 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)