User talk:Puffin

Puffin's Navigation bar

Home

Talk

Contributions

Edit count

Sandbox

Awards

Userboxes

Subpages

Rev deleted

Yep, done. Happy Easter! The Helpful One 15:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You too! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For beating me to reverting vandalism quite a few times :D Dan653 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cake

Thanks puffin for the cake! And a Happy Easter to you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem and happy Easter! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for spreading the wikilove! Here's a delicious brownie for you! Happy Easter! "Makhram the Maniac" talk 17:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Puffin. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"It's five years old"

You most definitely did not create any of these titles. All of them are years old: for example, it has been just about six years since File:9f03.jpg was a redlink. Your deletion tags would damage years of page revisions. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It did. However, that is completely irrelevant; the title has been around for years, and it is the title that you attempted to have deleted, not the content. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

When deleting lots of pages, it's easy to overlook bad tagging sometimes. When you place an inappropriate tag and don't tell the admin that it's been around for several years, don't use that as a justification for bad tagging. By the way, take a look at File:E5d3297c666c4456a60b85becb93a5e7.jpg — because it was only a few months old, it did qualify. The important date for R3 purposes is the date when the filename first appears in the log, because that's the real date when the title was created. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Don Kindt review

Hello, Puffin. You have new messages at Talk:Don Kindt/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Secret ^account 16:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Webster's Brewery has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, though I think my editing on that article was fairly minimal! Article now comfortably meets GA criteria. I didn't initially see the reason for the nomination, though it appears that work has been done since you nominated, which I assume has cleared up your concerns. As part of ongoing development of the article tidying up the cites would be helpful, though the reference formatting issues you raise do not strictly apply to GA which simply requires a reference section and inline cites for certain statements. It's worth having a look at Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not (particularly Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#.282.29_Factually_accurate_and_verifiable), which was mainly created by WhatamIdoing, but which has been looked over by various experienced GA reviewers who broadly agree with the advice there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• You closed this review very quickly. It's worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles, as we don't encourage quick fails, and the article certainly doesn't meet the quick fail criteria. The aim of the GA project is to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia - as part of that we want to help and encourage people to write better article. Quick failing is a negative thing to do, and should only be used in extreme cases. It would be helpful if you went back to that review, re-opened it and put it on hold for at least seven days to allow your concerns to be addressed. And in that seven days reacquaint yourself with the GA Criteria, and with the guidance we offer to reviewers. Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through some of your other reviews:

• Talk:Olds, Wortman & King/GA1 - Review closed too quickly, and concerns were raised by others that the review was using criteria not in Wikipedia:Good article criteria.
• Talk:Lectionary 179 - closed too quickly.
• Talk:Global cuisines/GA1 - article has issues, but no time was given to address concerns. Closed too quickly.

It seems that you fail articles the same day you review them. It might be a good idea for you to review your GA fails to see if they do meet the first things to look for, and if you have followed the guidance there appropriately. You may wish to re-open the reviews and give the contributors a chance to address concerns you raise with a standard seven day hold. We are always in need of GA reviewers, and your help is welcome, and I don't want it to appear that my observations here are a criticism, because it is easy to misunderstand procedures, and even though I have been around a while I still make mistakes. I always say that making mistakes is not a problem, it's how we deal with concerns raised about our mistakes that matters. If you need any help with going through those reviews, let me know. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that Global cuisines could have benefited from a seven day hold, as the article did need a lot of work to be done to it, so I used my judgement to determine that it wasn't ready to be a good article yet. Again, with Lectionary 179, I felt that the article had poor grammar and wording and also wan't ready to be a good article yet. Maybe, Olds, Wortman & King was closed a bit quickly, but I could have clarified that not all of the issues raised were compulsory. It seems slightly unfair that you are targeting me and implying that I am unfamiliar with reviewing good article guides. You may want to look at Talk:Think About It (Melanie C song)/GA1, which was also closed quite quickly, as there were major issues which couldn't be resolved in seven days. Also, the article Djungarian hamster which I nominated to be a good article received an earlier peer review and the reviewer knew that I was hoping to take it to GA and so provided suggestions. One of those suggestions was to complete the references and use appropriate citation templates, as you can see here. Back to Websters Brewery's citations, some of them are bare URLs which are subject to link rot. This would be a problem in the future and would need to be fixed.

I did encourage the editors to write a better article in all three of those reviews, if you look at the closing comment, they did provide encouragement. Webster's brewery did have some prose issues which I highlighted in the re assessment and yes I do feel that the article is improving a lot and will almost certainly keep its status as a good article. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. Yes, there are always reviews that are not done as well as they might, and articles that need improvement, but we can only deal with the things that come to our attention. We can't really sort everything out that needs fixing!

I have reviewed your contributions to Wikipedia and what has impressed me is that you learn quickly. You are keen to contribute, and have done some good work in taking at least one article to GA status. You made some mistakes when you started out on Wikipedia, and your first talkpage archive has a number of messages regarding those mistakes - but you took on board the comments and improved. That's a sign of the sort of editor we want, and also the sort of person who will one day make a good admin.

I hear and understand your comment that Global cuisines would not benefit from a seven day hold, but neither would it be much effort for you to put it on hold and come back seven days later to see what has happened. Over the years I have been very surprised at what people can achieve when motivated. Also, bear in mind that the article does not need to be perfect in seven days - if contributors are making positive progress, then it is standard practise among the best reviewers to extend the hold. Exactly how long a reviewer can allow has never been settled. There are those who feel that a month is enough, but there are others who will let a hold go on for longer. My guideline is if there is still active positive progress then I will extend the hold. Why not? The aim is to improve the article to an agreed standard - this is not a test or a graded examination, the GA project is to encourage editors to improve articles. As long as a GA review is making progress then it is fulfilling the aim of the project. Even if after seven (or more) days the article has still not met the GA criteria, but there has been some progress made, then that is better than simply failing the article and there being no improvements at all. An ongoing GA review is a much better motivator than a fail. People will work toward getting an article listed, and are often excited at the prospect - but will sometimes drop an article and walk away if they get a fail; even more so if the fail is quick, which is like a slap in the face: how dare you think you can get this article listed as a Good Article the state it is in! An article may have waited for a month or more for a reviewer, so keeping it open for seven more days is not going to hurt anyone.

Having said all that, I don't think that a GA reviewer should be expected to coach people, and there needs to be a judgement call on how much time and effort you should put in - depending on the quality of the article. Contributors should be encouraged to nominate articles when they are ready rather than in the early stages, and should be discouraged from expecting a reviewer to do most of the work. But quick failing a nominator who already has taken an article or two to GA status shouldn't happen. If you feel that a nominator is expecting too much, then have an open discussion with the nominator, as a fellow editor, saying that you think they have nominated too early. Remember, we are all colleagues here.

And I hear what you are saying about picking up bad habits from other people's GA or Peer reviews. It is because some bad habits were happening that we decided to create a guide to what the Good article criteria are not. The bare urls you mention in the Websters article are not part of the GA criteria. It is worth mentioning such matters during a review and indicating that the cites should be tidied up as part of the ongoing development of the article, but you wouldn't fail an article for using bare urls as references. Better still, you can visit the websites and by using a webtool, you can click and paste a citation template in place. I would do that, unless there were loads of them! In which case I would simply recommend people do it. Remember that as reviewer you are encouraged (though not required) to get involved, so you can make improvements yourself. Indeed, sometimes it is quicker, simpler and more helpful to make improvements directly (especially spelling mistakes, or citation formatting) than to list them on the review page.

I've written at some length as I feel you have promise, and that you will take on board what I have said. I am willing to help you, and to go through with you the reviews that you have quick failed to see what we can do to improve matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: barnstar

Hi Puffin! Thanks for the barnstar. Just out of curiosity, what led you to my talk page? Greetings LittleWink (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lectionary 179

I will work on those reviews one at a time, as I do agree with you after you clarified things further with your later response. I will be sure to ask you for any guidance if I need it and after finishing re-reviewing those three articles, I will be sure to take on board your suggestions and look very closely at the good article criteria to ensure the article is reviewed in the best possible way. Before I start with Lectionary 179, I have asked User:Leszek Jańczuk if they would like the review to be re opened, to ensure that I do not disrupt their current wiki work. Again, thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's very good! I think you have some promise as a future admin. I'll take a closer look at your contributions later, and if you like we can have a talk about adminship and going through RfA. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very nice. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I do not see any problem. Recently I have tried to prepare fr:Codex Sinaiticus for GA on fr wiki, but it is really difficult. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The original review of Lectionary 179 is very clear and helpful, pin-pointing areas to work on. As Leszek appears willing to do the suggested work, there are three ways of doing this: This could be amended to read onhold instead of onreview, and saved, thus reactivating the original review, a GAR could be started by Puffin, or Leszek could renominate the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed you have been mentioned at WT:GAN regarding re-opening this review. AIRcorn (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Stick Soldiers

Thanks for the warning notice but I cannot figure out how to use the images from Wikimedia, where I've reuploaded them and attached proper descriptions. Can you help me format them? Then the old ones that you tagged can be deleted. They are here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen4.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen6.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen12.png

The article that ought to be using the above links is here but is currently using the old images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick_Soldiers

Thanks, Keron Cyst (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are those images a screenshot from a copyrighted video game? If so, they shouldn't be on Commons. However, if you do indeed own the copyright to them, they can be on commons.

To use an image from commons, simply use the file name and place two square brackets around it. For example, [[File:Screen6.png|thumb|Caption]] for a thumbnail or [[File:Screen6.png|Screen6]] for just the image. If you don't understand, please tell me and I will try and clarify this for you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Puffin, thanks; the images are of a free copyrighted (and abandoned, ancient) computer game. I snapped those shots, and they contain content that I solely created. Does this allow for their use on the commons and in the Wikipedia article accordingly? Thanks, Keron Cyst (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If the game is copyrighted and does not have a liscence compatable with Wikipedia, you need to give fair use. You need to select a and provide a detailed rationale. I have removed the deletion tags from those images as I have provided a rationale. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just got your message; thanks. I see what you did so now I know how to add rationale for future images. Thanks for your help. Keron Cyst (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Contributions review

As promised I'm reviewing your contributions with a view to nominating you at RfA. I'll give you my overview when finished. If anything catches my attention as I'm looking I'll mention it here - such as you nominated File:Xm078.png for deletion because it doesn't have a fair use rationale. There are a number of templates for fair use rationales in Category:Non-free use rationale templates, and the one to use for this file is: Template:Comic cover rationale. You have also tagged File:TT arella.jpg for not having a copyright and licensing status - templates for these are at: Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. What I sometimes do if I come upon files that have incomplete data is to look on the talkpage of the article for any WikiProjects, and either ask there what to do, or look to see if they have a list of their best articles - such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics#Featured_articles, and then look at the files in those articles to see what templates they use. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through User:Puffin/CSD log, and a fair number of the files you nominated for speedy deletion have not been deleted. The community like to see a long record of secure judgement in this area for someone who is to be given the deletion tool. Speedy deletion is an area that a lot of people focus on, so it tends not to have a backlog: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, whereas there are some areas which have intense backlogs going back years: Category:Wikipedia backlog. If you have a particular interest in working in speedy deletion it would be worth getting in touch with an experienced admin who deals with that stuff and asking them for advice. Otherwise you could pick one of the other backlog categories and start work on reducing it. I have spent two years on Category:All articles to be split and reduced that from a six year and several thousand backlog to now just a few months and under 150. Very satisfying! I'll be looking next at Category:Articles to be merged which has 15,914 articles listed going back to January 2009. If you like working with files, you could work on Category:Wikipedia orphaned files which would mainly involve moving the files to Commons. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a good spread of contributions over several areas of Wikipedia, with lots of usertalk which shows that you are a good communicator, which is an important quality for an admin. I notice that contributions to Wikipedia projectspace is one of your smaller contribution areas. For someone looking to become an admin, the community like to see a bit more Wikipedia projectspace work, especially in WP:AfD. Some experience of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is also useful. Try getting involved in Wikipedia:Editor assistance and/or Wikipedia:Third opinion, and then when you have a feel for dispute resolution, take on a case in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal - this is a typical case (I'm not suggesting you take this case on, just showing you what is currently there). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your contributions - why are there two periods when you didn't contribute much? This is not a problem, though the community likes to be aware of likely future drops in activity, and also to be reassured that an admin is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your file moving contributions are good. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just curious - why did you create Category:Products introduced in 1976, start to populate it, and then ask for it to be deleted? What you feel about Category:Products introduced in the 20th century and the subcategories? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As I saw Category:1976 introductions which seems to be the same thing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a useful contributor who appears keen to help out on Wikipedia. I see you making mistakes but learning from your mistakes. I see you working in administrative areas as well as article writing, and that your article writing has resulted in a Good Article. I see you helping out on GA reviews and giving detailed and useful advice. I would be happy to nominate you for admin, though because of the lack of consistency in the speedy deletion nominations, and lack of involvement in dispute resolution and particularly AfD - areas that the community does focus on during an RfA, I would suggest that you have a period of six months working on these issues. Get involved in AfD discussions (and in RfA discussions) - and when you feel confident enough, start doing some AfD closures. With speedy deletion you would be better to either stop working in that area, or learn more about it so your judgement is more secure. Keep in touch during the next six months, and when you feel ready for RfA, let me know, and I'll take another look at your contributions. In the meantime, take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown, a current RfA, to get a feel for what the community are looking for. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, but I have to slightly disagree with some of the things you mentioned:

WP:AFD - Is it really compulsory to work in this area? I don't plan to work in this area if I was an administrator. I instead would prefer to work in places such as WP:UAA, WP:RPP, WP:RM and WP:ANI. I was also involved in WP:ACC, even though I was suspended 2 years ago, I learnt from my mistake and went on to create over 100 accounts. I am also trying to become involved in Wikipedia:Abuse response but I have to wait until I am approved by consensus. Also with dispute resolution, is this also really nescacary? I have some experience, for example on Talk:Paloma Faith#discography page.

Speedy deletion - I am fully aware about rationales and fair use et cetera but I disagree that just because some of the files I nominated for deletion have not been deleted, doesn't mean that they were wrongfully tagged. I don't even think they should be in a CSD log, as they are not speedy deletion templates, it gives the up loader seven days to provide a rationale and in every case where the file wasn't deleted, it was because someone provided a rationale before seven days was up. On that basis, I do not think that I should "stop working in that area." I don't even plan to work in the speedy deletion area too much, but I feel that all of my recent tags are acceptable and that I am capable of continuing with it.

Also, I am working on Campbell's dwarf hamster in my sandbox. Do you think the re draft in coming along well? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me if I am wrong. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of talkpage

It is unusual to have a talkpage protected for a long term. I note that you are following the guideline to have a sub talkpage, but wondered if you'd now consider unprotection of your talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, un protect it, I didn't originally ask for indefinite protection anyway. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative GA advice

Since you were mentioned at the WT:GA page I have had a read of the advice above given by SilkTork. Now I greatly admire his reviews, they are consistently some of the most thorough ones I have seen but I feel his advice does not represent the consensus view of GA reviewers. There is a difference between quickfails and failing an article without putting it on hold. Quickfails meet one of the five criteria at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for. Failing without holding is what you have been doing, conducting a review against the criteria, deciding that it would take too long to meet it and then failing the article without placing it on hold. This is perfectly acceptable and in my opinion, especially given the large backlog, should be encouraged for articles a long way off the WP:GACR. This has been mentioned towards the end of Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 15#Renomination of failed GA with no changes and User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 29#Not very helpful, and I recently made a suggestion to append the wording at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Sorry about the length. In short my advice is that if you want to keep reviews of article a long way from the criteria open you are more than entitled to, but you are under no obligation to. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lectionary 179/GA1

A few edits were made on April 25, 2012. Have these addressed your concerns? If not, perhaps it is time for a summary of what still needs to be addressed and a clear time period for its completion, or at least the latter. It's now 19 days since this was brought back. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, please read the nominators talk page for more information. Specifically the part about WP:GOCE. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it is done. Thanks for your patience. It is not easy to edit on several wikis together. Currently I have my RfA - pl:Wikipedia:Przyznawanie uprawnień/Leszek Jańczuk. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Webster's Brewery

Hi, you may want to close the reassessment page [1] for Webster's Brewery as the issues have been addressed.Farrtj (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ad. deleting.

Hi, thanks for message. I did delete the sidebar intentionally, as its got nothing to do with the website in question. We are not far-right, not "contrajihadists", not "islamophobes" and we do not have any "links" (as JonFlaune clamis) with Breivik. I know, I work there :-). Everybody else knows too, apparently except for JonFlaune, who obviously tries to smear document.no. I suggest You kindly take a look at the norwegian page on document.no (I have onlys done to tings there: I correted my own name and I added that Breiviks lawyers no longer have editor Hans Rustad on their list of witnesses), written by people who understands norwegian and therefore knows who and what document actually is.

JonFlaunes claims alsp contradicts the police`s investigation as well as statements officially given to the police - and the most newspaper articles written after the first months. If JonFlaunes smears continues - we don`t mind being critisized for what we are, thats why i did`nt remove it, but will not stand for untrue allegations by an unkown persons - we will take the matter further.

Kind regards, Nina Hjerpset-Østlie (NinaHj)