User talk:Orland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Female bishops[edit]

Thank you for adding to the "Female bishops" category which I created earlier this year. I appreciate your assistance in making this category more useful. Ringbark 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that someone has proposed this category for deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_26#Category:Female_bishops and vote. Ringbark 11:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OIC Map[edit]

Sorry, but I'm not really a fan of Wikicommons. I'm not that active there and I don't have an ID. Maybe you could ask Astrokey. He's active there and is more an expert in doing maps--maybe he can even make a higher standard OIC map. Now that I'm looking at the map, I think it is of poor quality (i.e. very poor resolution, not good color scheme, etc.). Joey80 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mehmet murat ildan[edit]

Hi I read your comment on huwiki about this turkish writer. well, I looked at the article in enwiki and checked the refs, the fact he has several published works (not one but at least 10) has to mean some form of notability... Self-promotion? don't think so, since he pronounced on his website that his biography is released into the public domain along with every piece of information on his website.... So the bio on enwiki was copied from there legally. Some of his works were published by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Turism. That must mean something :) (sorry for not writing to your NO page but it requires registration and I don't speak norwegian. :) --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not relevant to readers in languages that he has not been translated into. And the article is obviously lying about his reputation, as it foresees how his reputation will be in the future. Please note the intro statement "Following his epistolary novel, The First Sorrows of Young Werther, he is regarded as a romantic writer", when the book in question is due to be published in february this year. When the article also states that this unpublished The First Sorrows of Young Werther is his magnum opus, we an easily assume that this author is not notable, yet. --Orland 07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your message. This article is already nominated for deletion on id:. So we shall wait and see. Meursault2004 13:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
whatever mistakes the writer of the aricle made, you fail to recognise the works already published! as I said, he has been publsihed by the turkish ministry of culture, jeez, they don't publish anyone. I don't see why these articles should be deleted. Corrected, yes, but definitely not deleted. There are a lot more less notable people in wikipedia, I sense that you just partcularly dislike this person or the Turks and that blinds you from the facts. And this is not just my opinion, in huwiki there are some more editors who think the same, and they are not turkophile. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a strange misconcetion that I should have taken this steps to delete the article because I dislike the turks. I do not dislike turks. I like turks as well as any other people. This has nothing to do with the country, the people or the possible qualities of Ildans litterary works. My action is because his biography has spammed wikipedia way beyond reason. Even though an anonymous newbee Special:Contributions/Melanicool has corrected the most obvious errors in the biography, this is still selfbiograhy, vanity and spamming. --Orland 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This guy is becoming an expert in sock-puppets: 3 votes (including the IP). I think you should really consider requesting a Check-User. Clem23 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please refrain from pasting speedy delete notices that have been removed. It creates confusion and can be disruptive for Wikipedia. Thank you. Baristarim 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Baristarim. Please relate to the real matter in question: Someone has made a large number of articles on upublished manuscripts by Mehmet Murat İldan. These articles will only harme his case in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan-debate. --Orland 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Stop DO NOT keep on replacing speedy deletion notices that have been removed by many editors. You should read Wikipedia:Speedy deletions - self-promotion is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Baristarim 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this better, then? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli --Orland 09:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better :) In fact, I will qualify my vote there. It is just that speedy deletion process exists to get rid of articles that are complete non-sense in an effort to keep Wikipedia respectable, and if it were ever used for these sorts of disputes, the process would become much less efficient. Cheers! Baristarim 11:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Baristarim. Thank you for your support. As one user said on my norweigan talk page: "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP". As a sign of my respect for the the people of Turkey, and the literature of Turkey (and to prove that my actions only were intended to prevent spam, and had no intended bias), I am considering to write an article on Yasar Kemal in the norwegian wp. Would you approve that? Could you also suggest one or two other writers, artists or other turkish people that currently is missing in wp:no; check no:Kategori:Tyrkere for existing biographies. --Orland 11:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A statement in the Ildan case[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan.I got aware of this spamming incident when Ildan anonymously tries to publish himself to the norwegian wp, where I'm an admin and "cleaner". I discovered that he had published himself to 31 different wp-editions. I started the process to delete the article in norwegian, and to alarm other language editions. (Note: Most Wikis have only two turkish author articles: Nobel price winner Orhan Pamuk; and Ildan. Turkish national author Yasar Kemal is only described in 10 laguages yet, so this is clearly unproportional).

A french editor wrote on my norwegian talk page that "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP. On WP in french we are now shifting towards deletion, and all of his plays and books have already been speedily deleted. Thanks to you. fr:Clem23".

As of now it is clear that he is not listed in major turkish lists of authors [1]; that most of the articles (in all languages) are written by himself (probably using a translation programme); that he (or some other person) has used at least four suck puppets in the english deletion debate; and that turkishs contributors admit that " i've never heard of him in my life before his Wikiactivity. He is definitely not famous in Turkey, that i can assure you".

Articles about 10 of his unpublished and unstaged (!) plays have also been listed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli

That's for now. --Orland 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous suggestions that my actions should have anything to do with racism is totally without reason. I've already propsed to write 1-3 articles on other turkish authors og artists in the norwegian wikipedia in order to strenghten our representation of turkish art. And furthermore: As a literary critic, I've previously written an short essay on libanese author Amin Maalouf and a general essay on middle east literature in norwegian translation (link to essay, and even if you dont read norwegian, you might recognize some names: like Pamuk, Kemal, Khayyam, Mahfouz). --Orland 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! About the message you left me here: the only problem we have back there at the Romanian wiki is that until now we only had speedy deletion, not voting for deletion (we're still a relatively small community, and we prefer to expand rather than to delete :) But like I've already said, I've opened a discussion about it, but I would also like to see the outcome of the vote here at the --Vlad|-> 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again! As no one objected to the deletion of the article during 10 days, I've just deleted it from Romanian wiki. --Vlad|-> 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning[edit]

Stop vandalizing the List_of_University_of_Essex_people page.

You obviously confuse me with the person who edited to the article after me. Please read edit history again. --Orland 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Nice job!! Thanks. --20-dude (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm![edit]

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna Ceselie Brustad Moe[edit]

Why you moved the tile from Anna Ceselie Brustad to Anna Ceselie Brustad Moe? BTW, Government of Norway is redirecting to Politics of Norway. Can create the article Government of Norway? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As i wrote in the article, she is married to fellow MP Ola Borten Moe, and signed in the newspaper as Anna Ceselie Brustad Moe yesterday.
Sorry, but i cannot promise to write the requested article, perhaps a notice on The norwegian message board will give a response?! --Orland (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetization and collation[edit]

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Police crisis in Norway[edit]

Hi, what happened with the section "Police Crisis"? I thought I got a go for adding it to the page again from WikiProject Law Enforcement? And where did you put it? Daimonion (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Melhus church[edit]

Hi Orland, of course I cannot agree with your DYK review, but I would like to ask you, if you change your mind, if I change the hook? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, still disturbed. You are violating the aim of a balanced article about the church. See more at Talk:Melhus church. Bw --Orland (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Melhus church (2nd)[edit]

The following is copied from the deleted article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I must ask User:Mbz1 to stop violating and renaming this article in search for a headline. Who has come up with the idea that the debate about the Darre/Dass-portrait should be the sole interesting thing about this church? Where is the part about other church art within this church? Where is the part about architectural history?

The discussion about the portrait should be in the article about Petter Dass, certainly not here! As for me, I live relatively close to this church, which is i my home county. As an art historican and librarian i can confirm that the debate is real, but i think that the resume of it in this article is biased. --Orland (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And here's some more for your good memory. I wish instead of screaming "POV", "no,no,no" "bad" from "bad to worse" you'd better helped to improve the article, but I guess this is too much to ask for.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Melhus church[edit]

Melhus kirke 001.JPG

Created by Mbz1 (talk), Invertzoo (talk), Kjetil r (talk), and Finnrind (talk). Self nom at 22:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg-Need someone Norwegian to translate sources to verify.Smallman12q (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In such caes were supossed to agf it. But what I wonder is why is ther 4 creators, when only 2 have worked the article? Also, is fact cited? (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
@Smallman12q Is one of the creators OK for the translation, or I should look for someone else or maybe we could assume good faith?
@ Two others creators helped with Norwegian translation and the images. If four creators are too much, I will gladly take myself off, but all the others shoud stay. The facts are cited, and the source is very reliabale - Petter Dass museum in Norway for the hook .--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Creators cannot ok their own article. 2. Mbz1, you & Invertzoo wrote the article, Finnrind Kjetil r didn't, thats the problem. 3. AGF = Assume good faith (ie: translation not needed) 4. cite not at claim. (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Cite needs to be directly at hook fact. (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said they helped with the images and the translation. For example here. It will be only fair to include them as creators becuse they spent their time for translation from Norwegian that I do not know either. Could you please explain to me what does it mean "Cite needs to be directly at hook fact." ? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In stead of after "In the meantime the "portrait of Petter Dass" in Melhus Kirke remains surrounded by myth and mystery", it should be after "However, some historians believe that the subject of this famous portrait is not Petter Dass, but the clergyman Oluf Mentzen Darre." If Petter Dass museum says that. (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to have it verified by someone who can read norwegian (and was not involved in the development of the article). If no such person comes forth within a day or two, I will then assume good faith and accept it as it is.Smallman12q (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol delete vote.svg I would not recommend this article for DYK, mostly because the article deals with another subject than the church, which is supposed to be the subject. The autencity of the portrait is obviously discussed, and the discussion is well know in Norway, but the resume of the debate given in this article is slightly rhethoric and POV. --Orland (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The article has some good points, but overall I must agree with Orland, for instance, compare it with the Norwegian Wiki-article. --FinnWiki (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
@Orland, you ment my POV? Did I translate wrong from Norwegian source? I did not add any single thought from myself, and translated practicaly word to word from Norwegian sources. The portrait is the most famous belonging of the church. What's wrong with discussing this in the article? Even Dass museum does. I rather see you pushing your POV in declining the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The POV is not in the translation, but in the excerpt from the discussion, which is obviously pro Hansens arguments, and contra those of the Dass museum. (And, as i write below, making this debate a part of a description of the church is a violation of a balanced presentation of the church itself). --Orland (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
@FinnWiki, Compare it with Norwegian article, which has no single reference at all. Do you really like it better? --Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Added alternative hook and changed the name of the article to address the subject better.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no!! This goes from bad to worse! Wikipedia should without any doubt have an article about Melhus church, but by renaming this article you are increasingly underlining the POV: this is totally turning wievpoint away from the chcurch per se. Who has come up with the idea that the debate about this Darre/dass-portrait should be the sole interesting thing about this church. Where is the discussion of other church art within this church? Where is the part about architectural history? The discussion about the portrait should be in the article abot [Petter dass]], certainly not here! --Orland (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, Orland, maybe instead of blaiming me in POV you would be so kind to edit the article and to "add the discussion of other church art within this church and the part about architectural history?" I put in the article almost everything I could find on the subject, and I worked on it for a very long time, and very hard. I really tried to do my best, and I believe the artical is better then the one in Norwegian Wikipedia. Surely, you, Orland, living in Norway have much more resurces availabale to you. Why don't you help to edit the article instead of calling it "bad" and POV? In a meantime I guess I will nominate the article to be deleted. I've got enough here and I withdraw my nomination. Thanks everybody, sorry I took your time with a bad article and POV.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI- A small debate and you withdraw=(? You must understand that articles are nominated based on consensus, leave it here for a few more days and we'll see what other editors say. You see this is what you call a poor discussion. I agree with Mbz1, rather than saying its a bad article, you should help with it. As it currently stands, the article may still qualify for DYK if other editors can come to a consensus.Smallman12q (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's what Orland said at the article talk page:
"I must ask User:Mbz1 to stop violating and renaming this article in search for a headline. Who has come up with the idea that the debate about the Darre/Dass-portrait should be the sole interesting thing about this church? Where is the part about other church art within this church? Where is the part about architectural history?

The discussion about the portrait should be in the article about Petter Dass, certainly not here! As for me, I live relatively close to this church, which is i my home county. As an art historican and librarian i can confirm that the debate is real, but i think that the resume of it in this article is biased. --Orland (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)"
So that's why I decided I've got enough. I nominated the article for speedy and it was deleted, nothing more to discuss here. I only would like to add that, if I were looking for a "headline" as Orland says, it was not for myself, because as I indicated earlier in this very nomination I was ready to take my name as a creator of the article off the nomination. It was start class article that could have been improved later on. Much more information that I could not find could have been added later. Now the article is gone, and there's nothing more to improve.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Orland, may I please asure you that there was no any tiny bit of bias and/or POV in writing Melhus church article. I simly tried to do my best. It was hard for me to find info for the article. It just happened that what I did find was mostly about the portrait. Please believe me I was absolutely not interested in creating any headlines for myself. May I please ask you to help in improving of the article? Thank you.

--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing. Yesterday I removed my nomination for DYK, but today I renominated the article to DYK once again. If you feel as declining the article once again, I guess you need to repeat your decline one more time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the smile. And best wishes to you too! I must correct you on one misunderstanding though: even if I can point out a misinterpretation or wrong focused article, this is not necessarily an obligation for me to correct this article. I've got other obligations on no:wp, and in my offline life. --Orland (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course you do not have to do it. I just asked. One more time I'd like to asure you that, if there were misinterpretation or wrong focus in the article it was not because I was biased or tried to push my POV. I simply tried to add to the article as much information as I was able to find on the subject. I do hope that eventually the article will get improved in the way you suggested. I myself will also continue to work on the article. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orland, I am sorry to bother you once again, but you removed my edit. I believe I found the confirmation of the statement about Odin here. Of course this thing does not have a source at all, but I did find the source here. So, as you could see the old Melhus church was built at the farm that used to have the name Óðinssalr. So, I believe it might be safe to add the statement you removed back to the article. On the other hand I'm surely recognize your authority in the questions concerning Norway, and if you still believe the info is not sourced, I will not add it to the article. Thank you for your time, and once again I'm sorry to bother you with this.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. It is a well known fact / theory that most medieval churches in norway was built on the site of a hof, partly to explicit replace the former religion, and partly because these sites used to be located at the largest farm and/or in the midst of the community / valley / district. Thus, it would be wrong to emphazise this in connection with one church only. It belongs rather in Christianization of Scandinavia or History of Norway. (And furthermore, the source first used was definitely not of a kind to recommend). Bw, --Orland (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Orland! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,968 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Carolyn Coman - Find sources: "Carolyn Coman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Immigration to Norway[edit]

never mind about the 300% thing. It's already removed. But seriously, how can you claim that immigrants are net contributers to society because they pay more taxes than they recieve in welfare. I see that the source claims so, but are welfare benefits really the only expenses of a state? I'd say the source is wrong here. And remember, sources arent always right. Use your brain please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knarum (talkcontribs) 13:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orland, I believe the correct slang at Wikipedia in English is SPA, not SPU - apart from that I think you're right... Face-wink.svg Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
SPA is noted :-) This guy Knarum must have lots of friends sharing his views .... --Orland (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he don't have that many friends after all, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SameerJaved... Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
At last! Good to have "them" stopped. --Orland (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
obviously Knarum hated migrants to Norway. the agenda was very clear and I suspected there was more to it when I saw SameerJaved (talk · contribs) appear. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi. I saw that you left a user warning template ({{uw-tdel3}}) at this IP's talk page for about two weeks ago, and was wondering if you could take a look at this: This IP has added a new section in the article Criticism of multiculturalism—which I've been watching for a year or so—appearently discussing the topic at a Norwegian scale. Eventhough it looks encyclopedical and well-referenced at the first glance, it is quite problematic: The section does not deal with criticism of multiculturalism in Norway in any sense, but merely with his/her own POV, based on some controversies related to antisemitism and islam in Norway. I can't find one single reference to any Norwegian commentator or author engaging in public debate about multiculturalism in that section, as it is in many of the other sections, e.g. to the Canadian author Mark Steyn in the section Criticism from English Canada. As far, I've seen a violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV in these edits, but there's more: The IP user duplicated two paragraphs, which are now to be found under the sub-section Multicultural shools in Oslo and in the end of Integration Barometer 2009, and used quotation marks and words like "thus" about six–seven times in the section, making the text quite un-encyclopedical and essayish. Would you mind taking a look? Best wishes, Eisfbnore (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but it seems like an edit war is starting to evolve from the above mentioned article. The text in the Norway-section does still not contain any criticism of multiculturalism in Norway, but rather problems related to immigration to Norway. Bw, Eisfbnore (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, the article Criticism of multiculturalism is in itself written in a troublesome genre. We must only try to keep it as good as possible. I've got it on my surveilance list. --Orland (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

SUL request es:wp[edit]

This it to confirm that I'm posting a SUL request at es:Wikipedia:Cambiar el nombre de usuario. Bw --Orland (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Artur Balder References[edit]

  • References:.

There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them: I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past.

Lolox76 (talk)--Lolox76 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. When you start listing google searches as "references", I understand that we must think very differently about this. You must remember that this article was once deleted because of the spamming campaign. Therefore, is has to be so much better now, to be convincing. The article about Balder was deleted on spanish wikipedia. To me, that is a signal: If you can't convince in your own home language, why should we make an article in english wp? Bw --Orland (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it is just a bad signal for the Wikipedia itself, when a certain number of Wikipedia editors do NOT respect the rules and purposes of the Wikipedia. The actual references, as the previous ones, requiere JUST an impartial review from a neutral comitee. Frustrated critics, or editors that otherwise are not able to achive notability, unless making a fuss about phantom spam campaigns... are, from our point of view, not the appropiate counsellors for a global organism like Wikipedia. The references are there, and you will not be able to do nothing with, unless read them, and accept the facts. Best --Lolox76 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You have made a good deal of suggestions and wild guesses about my "misfeelings", "frustrations" and motivations in your recent edits. That is not a very good manner of discussion, neither is it a good way of convincing other wp editors about your good intentions.
Since you suggested that my profile of contributions "look much more destructive than constructive", I've taken time to enlighten you and other readers on the "profile of my contributions"; I have actually even written about spanish literature: here. And I regret to renounce your kind suggestion that I should make wp edits about spanish american history; I'm currently busy on a major project on no:wp, as you can see on this working page. Bw --Orland (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoever read my messages on the boards will undestand what's about. However, you are always steping out of the matter and the subject. If you have only a 10% of the Spanish knowledge you try to show, you will have to be able to step back and look at the references, and preciate them as that what they are. On top of that, there is a confirmation from NY and, if requiered, Meatpacking Productions LLC will show the references and direct information about the director and the film adressed to wp editors in the official site of the company I think this is the best way to "confirm" identities for everyone, not only for someone who is obviously taking the matter too personal. No one will undestand why you dont want to recognice the proofs of Artur Balder as writer or filmmaker, and the many references even of the trnaslation of the books... That's why I insist on your lack of neutrality.--Lolox76 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Artur Balder, Spanish Benevolent Society, Little Spain[edit]

As you are so proud of collaborating in some spam campaigns, I think you should check the above listed articles -included international references- and present a public apology for your behaviour in your Artur Balder personal campaign. Otherwise it will be necessary an investigation by other organisms inside the wp editing foundation to clear your deletion efforts against the main subject. Thanks --Lolox76 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? That is not impressive, given that you are anynomous.
Since I didn't vote for deletion in this discission, you might assume that I find him notable, now. And i might with good reason add a comment to my userpage about the difference between then and now.
My antispamming campaign (not spam campaign, mind you) against the Balder biography and the Curdy-articles took place more that two years ago, and I was not the only person that found it strange and difficult that Balder should have a wider wp-coverage that e.g. famous spanish nobel author Cela (Balder 62 languages in december 2008; Cela ca 44 now). You must be aware that i have no power to delete articles in en:wp, es:wp, dutch, portugese, etc. All these more than 80 deletions was performed by administrators within the 62 different language editions who felt that Balders claim for fame, at that time, was overexaggerated. You could also check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curdy and similar discussions around wp to see that I speak for more writers and administrators than myself. --Orland (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment at your userpage, it resolves the whole situation from my point of view. You are partly right, but I'd like to know your point of view of the deletion that took place at the spanish wp: the references of the books were almost the same, and that was a little strange. --Lolox76 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah, that would only be guessing, and not very good neither. I'm sorry. Bw --Orland (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tuklet med brukersiden din[edit]

Sier fra her slik at du ikke kan unngå å merke det (og eventuelt fjerne), Mvh Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeg tar det i beste mening, og sier takk, rett og slett. :-) Mange gode ønsker. --Orland (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Can you make sure I didn't mess anything up grandly with the Norwegian story? Thanks =), ResMar 02:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that :-) Bw --Orland (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish World Library[edit]

I created the Norwegian article here.
I translated the Swedish list too and added it there, but this idiot:

16:10, 22 November 2010‎ WikiDao (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,122 bytes) (-13,005)‎ . . (rm so-called "Swedish list") (undo) 

deleted the list.
You can pull the Swedish list out of the log there if you want and paste it onto your page.
Varlaam (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you are an admin over at Bokmal and Nynorsk.
I added Swedish to the Norwegian page because of the duplication between the two lists.
I also created the 100 Books of Le Monde pages at nowiki and nywiki.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ive made a notice on it here: Talk:Världsbiblioteket. By the way, I don't think anything good comes out of calling other people idiots. Centainly not when in public. Bw --Orland (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you there. [...]
I have removed the rest of your reply. My talk page is not the right forum for your disagreement with other editors. --Orland (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Glass Key award[edit]

I am seeking your knowledge.
This is the crime novel award for the Nordic countries, and we have an English template Template:The Glass Key award.
No Nordic language has this template. (I checked.)
Do you think that is because there are not enough articles to justify a template (except in Swedish),
or because of a general policy against templates?
(Both German and Spanish Wikipedia appear to dislike templates in general.)
Varlaam (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion in this specific matter. In general my view is that there is more than enough templates on wp --Orland (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's board notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just letting you know that I've posted this on the admin board, since we could probably use an uninvolved admin in this at this point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, fair enough. I have no idea what friends of mine Ms Fikos "agents" might be referring to. Due to the unusual high extent of autopromotion in this biograhpy, the deletion in no:wp was discussed in the e-mail-list of the no-wp-admins, not in a regular, open deletion discussion. It is therefore perfectly easy to prove - from the e-mail-archive - that the originale initiative to erase this wiki vanity came from several other persons than myself, before I was the one to take the action.
My history of contributions also very well proves that I've fought interwikispam before, and in norwegian wikipedia I've probably positioned myself as an exclusionist. My actions against Ms Fiko's promotional campaign is therefore coherent with my normal activity on wikipedia. I've previously met several other harsh accusations during these deletion discussions, among them that I am an enemy of the turkish people, when I initiated the deletion of the Ildan articles in 2007. This is however the first time someone has used their own divorce history as a part of accusations against me. From one point of view it is only strange, and desribes METC4F more than me. From another point of view, this is highly embarrassing, as METC4F intends to drag other, non-wikipedian people's friendship with my friends (or was it with me) into this case as a part of her defence in a deletion discussion.
Take a look at it: My loyalty to some unnamed ex of Ms Fiko should be so strong that I've managed to convince 5 no:wp admins, 2 da:wp admins and 2 sv:wp admins, plus on canadian and one japanese wikipedian to take part in a deletion process only to let Ms Fikos ex get an overdue extra revenge!? (Plus all the other 50-60 no:wp admins on our mailing list) If this was true, then I must really be a mad, evil "spider"; and not worthy beeing an wp admin.
I've spent the best part of the last 6 years contributing to wikipedia. Other norwegian contributors might if necessary testify to whether I'm respected for integrity in the no:wp community. Why should I risk all this years, hours and confidence only to participate in some hypotethical divorce vendetta? --Orland (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian royals template merge[edit]

Orland, your Norwegian royalty template merge proposal is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 3#Template:House of Glücksburg (Norway). Please comment there. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've left a comment there. bw --Orland (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal Standard[edit]

I do not appreciate you calling my actions a "solo raid", when I have worked on this matter for years and have had several sources long before the other two editors ever came along. You can disagree, but don't attack me in bad faith. Fry1989 eh? 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you don't appreciate it. But it is still a solo raid; as far as I can see, you are the sole editor working for your point of view. And what is more: you are arguing against learned and skilled men with impressive lists of merits in the field of norwegian heraldry (as User:Hans Cappelen and User:Roede; se also NORART for Lars Roede), without beeing able to make a good point. My advice is that you look for another battle to fight. Bw --Orland (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about battles, it's about truth and accuracy. I've been working on the flag since 2009 before either Roede or Hans Cappelen ever came along. Fry1989 eh? 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Four years? Is that so? As for my self, I've worked on the article no:Bhutan for almost eight years now, and the one thing I've learned from that, is that my knowledge still is limited, and that I still have to step back and respect advice and opinions from people better educated than myself.
And furthermore: You have worked with this for four years, and yet you see no difference between that fluffy rococo-style lion that you prefer, and the neo-classic Peterssen lion that is actually in use!? How do you think of your own four years of experience against the merits of Mr Cappelen, who wrote one of the sources to this article 7 years ago, and who has written about norwegian heraldry since 1969? Btw: Did you read Cappelen's article in Heraldisk Tidsskrift? Bw --Orland (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Where did I say that 4 years of effort makes me the expert?? It appears you're the one making this a matter of merit, when I believe Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of equals. From what I can see, this is just a case of one Norwegian backing up another. Fry1989 eh? 17:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What kind of argument is that? "this is just a case of one Norwegian backing up another". Why is it surprising that several norwegians have opinions about this flag? Wouldn't it be easier to take this as a token of wide consensus in the norwegian community, rather than suggesting some kind of ethnic conspiracy?
And you have not answered my questions: Did you read Cappelen's article in Heraldisk Tidsskrift? Don't you think writings like that makes him a qualified voice in this matter? Bw --Orland (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I haven't read it and I will not at this point. I've tried to work on this and get it right for 4 years and all I got in return was constant opposition to any sources or whatever else I had to say, being called a troll just today, and you accusing me having some air of superiority simply because I've been working on this the longest out of anyone involved. As for an ethnic conspiracy, it's not the first time on this project I have seen people back each other up based on those lines, and I couldn't count how many times I've been told "You're not one of us, you couldn't possibly know as much about anything to do with our nationality as we do", whether it's from Serb users or Portuguese users or others. If my effort isn't welcome then that's fine but I resent the harsh language I often receive for trying to make this place better and more accurate and more informative. Fry1989 eh? 00:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Please don't take it as an insult to your person if everypone else disagrees with you. You could see it as an chance to learn something new; there is of course the possibility that everyone else disagrees because your opinion is wrong. And with all due respect: you have not "been working on this the longest out of anyone involved"; I have pointed out for you that Cappelen wrote about this flag 7 years ago. Bw Orland (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The 100 Best Books of All Time listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The 100 Best Books of All Time. Since you had some involvement with the The 100 Best Books of All Time redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@McGeddon:. Thank you. I've given my opinion. Bw --Orland (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)