User talk:EmilEikS

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, EmilEikS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Log ins

This is what you are looking for. As to a bot blocking the artilces, I don't know what that is. If Google has not yet indexed it, it may not show up in their search results. If after a few days it still does not show up in Google's search results, leave a message at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Hope that helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploads

Please do not tag images with a copyright notice that states that you are the creator of these images, unless you are such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of having done so. Please let me know where I went wrong if so! Lars Jacob or contracted employees of Lars Jacob Prod working on assignment for Lars Jacob Prod are the creators, which I now have specified under Licensing on each photo's page. My organization CabarEng (I am chairman) owns the rights by contract. EmilEikS (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A Number of New Uploads Today

Please anyone note that I think I am doing this right now and tagging everything correctly according to my correspondence with User:Howcheng! Thank you! EmilEikS (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box (or see [1]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 02:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your image uploads

So they are now duplicated on Commons? If so, then yes that means that can be deleted from the English Wikipedia. I'm sorry you had to do all this duplicate work, but when they are on Commons, they are accessible to all of our projects. howcheng {chat} 04:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Folke Ryden

You still need to complete your AfD nomination. See WP:AFDHOWTO step III. You also need to cut down on the amount of comments in the AfD nom. Just be to the point and state which grounds you are using for deletion. i.e. WP:N or WP:V etc.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mae West

I'm a bit off-put by the message you left me. First of all, yes I am an American citizen. Having said that, it has no bearing upon the equal application of Wikipedia policy and in this case, I have to think that you have a bias about West and are interpreting the removal of the flag per policy in an inappropriate manner. It is not an "interpretation of policy." The policy quite clearly states "Flag images, especially flag icons in biographical infoboxes, should not be used to indicate birth or death places." That is not ambiguous or open to interpretation. Further, it is completely a matter of personal perspective about what may or may not be considered an appropriate focus of national pride and I would suggest to you that there are a host of persons who have been and are equally, if not more, suited to describe as an ambassador of good impressions of this country or a symbol of national pride that have nothing to do with sports.

It's a bit disengenuous of you to imply that there is something dishonorable in the removal of an icon per policy to the memory of anyone, save perhaps a fallen military hero or leader. Please review WP:NPOV. Editors are supposed to approach articles from a neutral and unbiased perspective in order to create a balanced and unbiased product. Articles don't exist to honor anyone. That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be of great benefit for you and your compatriot to take a slight step back and look closely at what you are doing. There is absolutely no reason for either of you to turn your upset at a policy into a personal attack. I am not throwing my weight around, I have not talked down to you, I have said or done nothing that would border on threats or would indicate anything of the sort. Kindly direct your discussion to the issue at hand. This is making a mountain out of a molehill and nothing is accomplished with it. I'm sure Wikipedia is quite happy for your contributions, but please do not imply that policies and rules should be bent because you don't like them. I won't replace the flag icon, you and your friend are blowing it completely out of proportion. As you said, "Facts about bascially good people automatically honor them." An icon doesn't, and the appropriate use of these specific icons is not tribute. If you don't like the policy, then I suggest you challenge the policy, not someone who works within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia in order to promote consistency and equitable application. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is rather odd, if you'll pardon my saying so sir or madame, that you claim not to talk down to people. The only way you can get away with that is by removing a lot of your lecturing all over this English Wikipedia project. The kind of stuff - pages and pages of it by you and other zesty teachers - that is going to make it hard to find the financing this project needs. I doubt you will be financed thus. Foundations and others that might be able to donate are not likely to be interested in that. A very educational Swedish expression for you: Högmod går före fall. This organization has no further comment to you than this one, after your preposterous and highly offensive "please do not imply that policies and rules should be bent because you don't like them" above. That is how you reply to people who try to express an opinion that doesn't agree with you and yours. We actually have some rules of our own. One of them, minuted at our Annual Membership Assembly last year, is that the Board is not under any circumstances to correspond with anyone anonymous. You are anonymous to us as you choose to work here under an alias. I now regret having bent that rule in your case, as we are so offended by your behavior and don't even know who you are. We find you 95% unimpressionable (deeming from your input all over), so what was the use of writing to you? To round off, I now see that Fiandonca has suggested you do some constructive work, real editing that is. At risk of some insults from you, like you wrote to her about seconding opinions, Southerly Clubs and I wholeheartedly second her suggestion. Good-bye, Wildhartylivöie! EmilEikS (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Copied to your talk page.

I was only asking to clarify her statement. Since it could be construed as a legal threat. Since she has said it is not, no problem. For the rest, she is been treated as I would like to be treated. No one has been rude to her. Please point out to me any comments directed at her which could be considered rude. To find some comments the other way around is probably easier. Garion96 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am frankly surprised, to try to put it as mildly as I possibly can, that you cannot find very condescending and sarcastic language in that editor's first messages to Fiandonca. Methinks there is some camaradarial blindness in there somewhere. Several of the comments have been quoted in all this haranguing (very very tiresome). It is unfathomable to me, if you'll pardon a slightly less mild term, that you are not able or willing to see that rudeness, to which she reacted naturally albeit somewhat drastically in some of her own wording. To us in my office, it is perfectly clear who picked this fight and, particularly who made it escalate out of bounds. But, OK, let's disagree like gentlemen (or a lady if you are one) and be done with it. On to better things before Miss West climbs down from that marble perch of hers and bops us on the noggin. EmilEikS (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Corrected typo EmilEikS (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued Badmouthing

I was ready and willing to clear the slate (as above) and try to be nice until I was advised about some of the destructive writing that is still going on back and forth, such as "...added a large number of images to the Commons, then seems to try and control the manner and context in which they are presented (insisting on credits, sizing, etc.) He's thrown that, and his "board" up several times today..." and so forth. The words I put in bold type here are indeed bold faced you-know-whats (or may I hope you didn't?). We have never "insisted" on anything and have never even mentioned image sizes. For special reasons I have explained, we have asked nicely that some charitable image credits be allowed to remain in captions, which has been disregarded by a few editors (a few articles on EnW only) and we have then dropped the subject. I (we) are also called "sock", though I only suspect what that might mean. When I am insulted in public all our members who elected me to represent them are also insulted. Sorry if that sounds overly "superior"! I suggest, once again constructively, that these people carry on their badmouthing and fibbing by email, behind my back. You user name is involved in this, Garion 96. An even better suggestion is that you try to use your influence as an administrator to put a stop to all of this NOW and have averybody make peace, as I am willing to do, while I still am willing. I truly think Ms Wildhartl.... may be in a position to thank for that too, eventually. Look forward to some kind assurance from you about that suggestion a s a p. (We lost Fiandonca, I think, according to an email I received, so anyone that hated her can breath a sigh of relief). In any case, for the rest of us, let's not have it all come down (to paraphrase Mae West) to "whom the mother should have thrown away and kept the stork". Please! EmilEikS (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no info on the images, nor do I care. Except the fact that I do really appreciate the free content images. Regarding the rest, your board, to me, is irrelevant. I post a message here to you, not to your board. The mention of the sock was a reference to wp:sock. Since for many, including me, it seemed incredible that two unrelated editors saw insults to where there were absolutely none. In all the comments to Fiandonca no one has been sarcastic, rude condescending etc. (S)He on the other hand has been exactly that. There is no camaradial blindness there, just the ability to read. If you think otherwise, please copy the sentences so that I can see it. Garion96 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Editing?

I see you already worked it out on the talk page, and the article does look improved. Try to not take things personally, collaborating with others on Wikipedia is not always easy and especially to see your work mercilessly edited. I did not agree with the editor's assesment of the sources though. That there isn't "a single reference that can be verified by the majority of editors on the English Wikipedia" is irrelevant. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Garion96 (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, this was not wikihounding. Basically get over it. You really see attacks where there are none. Although by now I can understand if Wilkhartlivie is, to say it mildly, quite upset with your behaviour. Don't go Tilting at windmills. First there were no attacks on that one editor who objected to the flag and now this about an unimportant assesment. This whole assesment btw says nothing of the editor or the subject of the article. Garion96 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation and Footnote Tags

As far as what I have learned and always done, a footnote tag (such as "[1]") should always be put immediately after the word that the footnote refers to with no space and no puncuation between the word and the tag. Thus, tags should look like this[1], not like this,[1] and certainly never like this, [1] in any case. A sentence with a tag at the end should end like this[1]. Not like this.[1] And not like this. [1] - That's what I thought was the only correct way to do it. I wouldn't even bring this little item up if it weren't for the fact that all the careful, intricate time-consuming work I have been doing on several articles, referencing them, now is beginning to be undone in this detail by editors who are spending time and effort going in and changing my footnote tags to read the way I believe they should not (as per above). Could someone explain why that is happening? Would appreciate it. EmilEikS (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the way you are doing it is incorrect on Wikipedia per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The footnote follows immediately after the punctuation, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Hopefully this helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Contentiousness

Contentious and/or controversial input, including notification of ongoing arguments, is not welcome here.

• I am not interested in arguing about anything or discussing anything else but positive and constructive input of information and images to benefit Wikipedia.

• I will not under any circumstances correspond with or comment about anyone I have found or will find condescending. Nor will I read anything that has do to with any such person.

• I am hereby extending a blanket apology, no questions asked, to anyone who feels I owe him or her one.

Please respect my wishes and do not post anything here that goes against the policy I have now stated! EmilEikS (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank you!

You are very welcome. I'm a member of the Guild of Copy Editors WikiProject, so I'd be happy to look at any other articles on which you are working. Best regards, momoricks ^{make my day} 01:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hippie

Hello. Thanks for your edits to the hippie article. As a new user you may not be aware of many of the policies and guidelines that help make this place work. That's ok, you're not expected to know everything. At this point, you learn as you go along. Please continue to use the talk page but make sure to bear in mind that edit warring is not the solution. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm not sure you got my message or not, but if you did, keep in mind that there are two outstanding requests on the talk page. One, you restored the "sic" to the Jay Stevens quote with a revert without explanation on talk after I requested it. I'm waiting for you to address that particular issue. Two, you've added a paragraph of unsourced content that now has a citation needed tag. I'm going to remove both from the article if this isn't addressed. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your good advice! I was sad that you addressed my recent edits to Hippie as possible edit war. The issues are far more important. I do not engage in edit war as you would have seen if you would have read an important section called "Contentiousness" further above on my talk page. Please respect my wishes there! You are free to comment and give me any good advice as long as there is no undue personal criticism or accusation stated or inferred. You may also refer to me as new a few times but that too, if overdone in a masterful tone, is condescension. I'm not saying you did that (yet). I may be older than you think (though connections) and am in good touch with several experienced administrators. Best regards. EmilEikS (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. Your account was created on 22:33, 19 October 2008[2] and you have a total of 663 edits. On Wikipedia, we describe this as a "new user". No offense was intended. As for edit warring, that's exactly what you did on hippie. You made a series of bold edits, I reverted your changes, and I then immediately started a discussion on the talk page. This is called bold, revert, discuss. Unfortunately, you continued to revert without fully addressing the questions asked on the discussion page. That's called edit warring. Since you are a new user, you might not be aware of this. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how fast you type, but it looks like you pounced a bit without giving me a few minutes to reply. Thus it may have looked like edit warring to you but the facts now show that it was not, I believe. EmilEikS (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is considered appropriate for you to rethread my talk page to suit you, please refer me to whatever Wikipedia guidelines that makes that appropriate. The behaviour certainly is pretty shocking, and warlike, if you ask me (you didn't). In any case, please never do that again! Appreciate it. EmilEikS (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion on the talk page at 11:18[3] and followed up with a second comment at 11:20.[4] Both talk page edits were made before I subsequently edited the article at 11:22[5] with the edit summary Weasel words and "sic" removed. See new section on talk for explanation. You then blanket reverted without discussion to your preferred version at 11:52[6] telling me in your edit summary to See discussion.[7] However, there was no discussion until you finally chose to reply at 11:59.[8] That's called edit warring, and your edit summary was dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)