Jump to content

User talk:Bjerrebæk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ambraelle (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 12 January 2018 (→‎Regarding your editing of the HiOA page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Bjerrebæk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Supertouch (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Nomination for deletion of Template:Academic degrees of Denmark

Template:Academic degrees of Denmark has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Faculty of Law, University of Oslo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reader
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Christiania

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Code

Well done on creating the above article. One point, though: I urge you to find a reliable source to support the sentence about Norway and Denmark interpreting the same provision differently. Some further information about that would be great too. I urge this to help get the article into the Did you know? section of the main page. ClaretAsh 14:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into that. Bjerrebæk (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bredo Henrik von Munthe af Morgenstierne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Munthe af Morgenstierne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Norwegian Scientific Index (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Continuum, Duckworth, Rodopi, Ashgate, Historisk Tidsskrift and Equinox Publishing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Scientific Index

Hi, concerning your last edit there and especially your edit summary "Rv disruptive tagging. Also, note that using multiple accounts to promote your view is strictly prohibited", please note the following: As a Wikipedia editor, you are supposed to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. "Abusive editing" is defined here and as the last edit by another account than yours or mine was over 6 months ago, obviously does not apply: there is no tag-teaming, piggybacking, use of sleeper or IP accounts, or evidence of meatpuppetry. Nevertheless, feel free to file a report at WP:SPI. If you accusation is an attempt to make me reveal something about my real-life identity, by trying to lure me to confirm or deny anything about my identity, please read WP:OUT. Please read the policies that I linked in the foregoing carefully and consider yourself duly warned: the next time you direct such an unfounded serious accusation at me, I'll file a report at WP:ANI. As for the article on Norwegian Scientific Index and its inappropriate lists, I'll start a Requests for comment on the talk page where you can present your views (in a neutral and non-confrontational manner). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. As a brand new user who registered just recently, you show a striking familiarity with procedures here and a peculiar interest in the same shtick as another editor editing that very same article. Please read up on our policy on WP:SOCK. Let me stress this very clear: An editor is only allowed to edit (at least the same article/dispute) using one account. lIf you continue behaving disruptively and violating policy, you might find yourself blocked soon. Consider yourself warned. The edit by the former editor, and now by you, is also unfounded and disruptive use of tags. If you are really a new editor, you need to learn more about how we use tags here. Also, I couldn't care less about your "real-life identity" and have said nothing in that regard. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors only set up an account after having edited as an IP for a long time, for example. And you don't understand WP:SOCK: it concerns simultaneous editing trying to circumvent policies (such as 3RR or "vote stacking" at AfDs) and such. That is why the fact that the article hasn't been edited for 6 months before our recent edits proves conclusively that whatever is going on, sockpuppetry is not involved. (By the way, it even is allowed for editors to operate several accounts simultaneously, as long as they use them for separate purposes. Some people have a separate account to edit, say, pornography articles that they don't want to have associated with their main account). In any case, I repeat, please feel free to file a report at WP:SPI (and see how fast you'll get a slap on your fingers). Just because you disagree with the placement of those tags does not make them "disruptive" nor did my placing them there violate any policy that I know about (but do tell me if I'm wrong). In any case, given your (rather violent) opposition, I have not placed them back and have opened an RfC and you are free to voice your opinion there. Once the bot has listed the RfC, we may get the opinions of other uninvolved editors and we'll see what they have to say. --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arnulf Kolstad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NTNU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siri

Please stop moving the page Siri (name) to Siri. There was consensus made to keep the software page as primary only a month ago. Please see Talk:Siri#Requested move (2013). Deadbeef 20:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no consensus, but a roughly equal number of opposition and support (the latter based on plain ignorance (like a very common name being "obscure") and misinterpretation of policy). Stop moving the page around, the name is the primary topic, not the obscure software. The software is named for the name, not the other way round, and the name has been used for about 800 years, and the software was invented yesterday. Also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the fact that you're trying to quote a non-fitting policy page and an essay at me, consensus can't be undone without consensus. While the !vote wasn't a landslide, there were still more people supporting making the software the primary page than making it secondary. If you want to suggest a move, you can raise it on the talk page where (weak, but binding) consensus was first established. Please see WP:CAREFUL about limits on editing WP:BOLDly.. Deadbeef 20:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, there was no consensus in the first place, so no consensus that needs to be "undone". We don't vote on Wikipedia. The only bold edit was the one that incorrectly moved it without consensus recently, and I merely reestablished the stable version that there was no consensus to change. Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I retract what I said earlier. It wasn't weak, the !vote was 5-2 to move. You can't just upend that without discussion simply because you think it's wrong. Start a discussion on the talk page; there's no WP:DEADLINE to get it done right now exactly the way you want it. Might as well have community support to do it in a week than get in a battle to get it done now. Deadbeef 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to raise this issue again, you should do so at Talk:Siri - tagging the article as "{{NPOV}}" and "{{advert}}" does nothing to communicate your concern to other editors, as these templates are for raising issues about an article's content, not its name. --McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal from Jens Stoltenberg

Hi. I noticed that you have removed some content from the above article and claim it to be POV. I would like to know what made you think that, if the parts were referenced? Considering that JPost is a reliable source. If I will be you, instead of deleting I would have moved to and/or created criticism section.--Mishae (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told already by other editors that adding a large POV worded section sourced to far right extremist sources in the article on Jens Stoltenberg is unacceptable, UNDUE and POV. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a POV, the refs are reliable sources, The Jerusalem Post, as well as FrontPage Magazine. I proposing to include criticism section, that way weather you are far right, or not the article will be balanced. As a side note, please voice your opinion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and here.--Mishae (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, your proposed edits have been rejected by multiple editors because they are POV and because the sources are extreme/fringe. I caution you against inserting material violating the BLP policy into that biography. You have to obtain consensus on the talk page before inserting controversial material. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an admin? I don't see it on your userpage. Either way, I personally don't care if he was anti-semi or not, but RS is RS, you can't go against it. FrontPage Magazine is a notable RS, JPost and Arutz Sheva are used widely on articles related to Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. So, as far as "numerous editors" go, I saw only two: You and @Huldra:.--Mishae (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have been removed by three editors if not more. Frontpage Magazine is an extremist publication affiliated with Jihad Watch, and not a reliable source.[1] The tone of your contribution has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. I reiterate: You must obtain consensus on the talk page of the article before inserting controversial material like this. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Let's wait on consensus to agree on something, but I tend to believe that your tone aren't friendly either, and is in violation AGF. Telling me that my contribution has nothing to do with encyclopedia is quite rude. I don't tell you that your contribution is vandalism, do I? Now, I checked WikiPage on FrontPage Magazine, and it doesn't say anywhere that its an extremist magazine, just because both comes from David Horowitz Freedom Center doesn't mean that Wikipedia should delete them, or remove sources to them. By the way, you haven't commented on Arutz Sheva, what's wrong with that ref?--Mishae (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the proposed addition, as explained by other users, is that its tone is non-neutral and that the material is given undue weight in Jens Stoltenberg's biography. There has been some criticism from a few hard right individuals in Israel. The Jewish community in Norway, as well as the Israeli government, have rejected these allegations, and it has been pointed out that it was based on information from two individuals who were excluded from the Norwegian Jewish community ten years ago for their links with a racist group (as pointed out by Anne Sender, former head of the Jewish community of Oslo [2]). Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then Fox News is not an RS either, and should be excluded from multiple republican-related articles because as you call it its far right too. Another thing, do not speak of me as "pro-Russian" like you did here: [3] even if it does say on my user page. I'm as pro-Russian as well as pro-Ukrainian, which means that I don't choose between Eastern and Western powers. I also don't like majority of world leaders, but I edit articles neutrally. As far as my edit with Jens Stoltenberg goes, I follow by not what I like, but what is RS. Maybe I didn't knew completely what it is. According to our policy on reliable sources, it said that "newspapers, magazines, books, news channels", are considered to be RS. If it would have been a blog, that will be a different story, but even there its fishy. For example, using a personal blog is a no-no in Wikipedia, but using a blog from say, New York Times, is still considered to be an RS. Now, because The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, and FrontPage Magazine are newspapers, magazines and media, they fit perfectly well with being RS. I personally don't understand the issue here. If they are that bad, extremist and such, why they weren't blacklisted in the first place? Perhaps, because they are still considered to be RS under Wikipedia policy they were left alone. As far as your above source goes, it is not an RS, and here is why; First, you quote Anne Sender who as you said is a representative of Jewish community in Oslo. We don't consider her to be an RS because she is an individual, have no notability to be included into Wikipedia, and her views are marginal comparing to JPost which is used on other Wikipedia articles as well.--Mishae (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of rectors of the University of Oslo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harald Ulrik Sverdrup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LinkedIn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hacking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vista Analysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RUC edit requests

Hi Bjerrebæk

I've suggested some changes to the article about Roskilde University and since you have made many changes on university topics, I'd like to ask you, if you have some time to look at my edit request about RU. Hope its possible. --Simon (RUC) (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Lipschitz

Hey, Flash! Get better glasses before You start accusing people of stuff. Thank You. Also, are You absolutely sure about a decade of disruptive edits? I didn't think so. Sincerely, Space Cadet (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the spelling back to "phd" (which is incorrect in English) for no particular reason, and that certainly was not a constructive edit. Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look again, blind guy! First I changed "phd" into "PhD", and for a very good reason, then I realized the guy was German, and I have a ban on Germany and related, so I changed it back. Don't jump to conclusions, especially, if they make little sense. Happy editing. Sincerely Space Cadet (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move reverted.

Per WP:Requested moves, your move of Chemotherapy has been reverted for discussion. Any move of a longstanding title with large numbers of incoming links is likely to be controversial, and the RM process is required for controversial moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits on MDPI

Hi Bjerrebæk,

You have reversed edits made by MDPI on the company’s wikipedia page and have a history of adding only negative information about MDPI. What is your conflict of interest and how come you only edit about us and not other open access publishers?

As for Mr. Beall's opposition to open access, this is an important fact to mention in the lead while MDPI is "considered a predatory publisher", please *read*: http://www.aaup.org/article/what-open-access-movement-doesn’t-want-you-know http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.24.118 (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shu-Kun, I do indeed edit a lot about academic journals and publishers, not only MDPI, both on the English and Norwegian Wikipedia, and I have no conflict of interest related to MDPI other than a general interest in, and knowledge about, the academic publishing industry and publishing standards in particular, and the fact that MDPI has come to my attention as a result of Beall's (and Wikipedia's) coverage of it. Bjerrebæk (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bjerrebæk,
I see I missed signing my last message – this is Alistair from MDPI and I was made aware of the fact that our Wikipedia page has picked up on the controversy with regards to MDPI’s inclusion on Jeffrey Beall’s list. Hence my recent edits. I am happy to discuss with you further as you are interested in MDPI, and provide more information to address your concerns.
As you know, Jeffrey Beall is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to his list. I strongly believe that it is important for readers of the MDPI Wikipedia page to understand his general attitude towards open access in this context. I absolutely support freedom of speech and have no issue with Jeffrey Beall’s opposition of open access. However, the information in our lead on Wikipedia, I think, should be somewhat more neutral, while at the same time of course mentioning controversial issues. Do you really believe that Jeffrey Beall’s list is free of bias and should be reflected 1:1 on Wikipedia? Did you compare MDPI to other publishers on the Beall’s list? You will find inexplicable differences. As you may know, MDPI published close to 12’300 articles in 2014 and of this content, more than 75% is already in Web of Science. Do you believe that we could be a member of COPE, OASPA and STM and continue to have journals accepted into leading indexing databases if we were not adhering to good practices?
We are well aware of the problem there is out there with bad publishers, who are often targeting authors from developing countries. It is very unfortunate that their practices are having an adverse effect on the reputation of open access in general. However, I can assure you that we strictly adhere to ethical publishing policies and standards. In any case, whitelists are much more effective (and positive) than blacklists. Would you not agree that, a blacklist should rather be maintained by an independent group of experts and include regular audits of the publishers?
As you are interested in MDPI, I kindly ask for your support. The source added with regards to MDPI sending spam is anonymous and could be anyone (i.e. could be a competitior, someone who is trying to damage the reputation of MDPI etc.). The claim that we send spam e-mail is absolutely ludicrous! You can read more about what our guest editors say about us (as you will see, including the names - so these people can be contacted to verify their experience): http://www.mdpi.com/editors/testimonials. And also some testimonials from authors (again with names) are here: http://www.mdpi.com/authors/testimonials
My final question to you: Could we agree on a change to the lead, so that we can provide readers with a more balanced view? I really think it is unfair to state MDPI sends spam based on unfounded allegations of anonymous sources on a blog. This reference is already mentioned under the section “Inclusion in Beall's list”. This is not just about the reputation of MDPI, but also of all the employees of the company. Regards, Alistair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.24.118 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to remove the spam accusation from the lead and only mention it below for now. Even if the source has been anonymized by its publisher (which is not an uncommon journalistic practice), the publication, Scholarly Open Access, is still regarded as reliable in Wikipedia terms, as it is written by a recognized expert. The article also states that the identity is known to the publisher, i.e. Beall. Regardless of your perspective on Beall, which is understandably critical as he is highly critical of you, he is still widely regarded as the leading authority on questionable open access publishers. Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being accommodating on the subject of the spam allegations. I did not expect you to answer all the questions from my previous message. The statement that Jeffrey Beall is opposed to open access is not intended as an attack. It is an attempt to put into perspective for readers who is branding MDPI a “predatory publisher” and a conclusion of the opinions voiced by Jeffrey Beall in the articles I referred to in my previous edit: “The open-access movement is a coalition that aims to bring down the traditional scholarly publishing industry and replace it with voluntarism and server space subsidized by academic libraries and other nonprofits. It is concerned more with the destruction of existing institutions than with the construction of new and better ones”, or “I do find that the open-access movement is a Euro-dominant one, a neo-colonial attempt to cast scholarly communication policy according to the aspirations of a cliquish minority of European collectivists” (http://www.aaup.org/article/what-open-access-movement-doesn’t-want-you-know and http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514). Will you not concede (at least in part) that it is hard to argue against Jeffrey Beall’s opposition of open access? Is he unbiased enough to prosecute, judge and execute fairly? For your information: he never asked us for any data, or information, or feedback before adding MDPI to his “list”. He has never contacted us prior to writing an article to corroborate facts. Don’t get me wrong – I fully appreciate opposition and critical voices, which are always healthy in terms of having a balance. But I hope that you understand the implications - not just to the reputation of MDPI, but also to the authors of 54’743 articles published to date in our journals and to our staff members - if our Wikipedia page portrays MDPI in a light tainted by one person’s opinion. It places us in a bucket with companies who are borderline criminal (which is indeed the case of a few of the “publishers” on his list). This is why I think Wikipedia has to draw a line somewhere and provide a balanced view on such issues. Jeffrey Beall is working on a very important subject, but his views are prejudiced and as such, it is very difficult for us to accept that our lead on Wikipedia portrays the company in this way.
Could we at least agree to some compromise in how the lead is structured and consider the impression to readers, so that it is clear that Beall’s views on open access are critical? Or keep the discussion about MDPI’s “dispute” with Jeffrey Beall out of the lead and have this information covered in the main body ? Regards, Alistair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.24.118 (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About MDPI

Hi Bjerrebæk, Jeffrey Beall has removed MDPI from his list. This was long overdue, see: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Can we now agree to modify the first paragraph, as MDPI is no longer considered a predatory publisher by Mr. Beall? Regards, Alistair 46.140.24.118 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, the article should be updated accordingly. The section below would still need to describe the controversy, including MDPI's inclusion on and subsequent removal from the list. Bjerrebæk (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New universities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polytechnics. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

I think this edit was not at all helpful. The notability of this academic has not been established and you are shirking your WP:BURDEN to cite these statements with decent WP:RS. Please don't remove those maintenance tags without addressing the issues. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, referring to other editors as vandals when they are clearly not vandalizing - rather misunderstanding policies - just as you appear to be - falls under the category of WP:NPA. Reporting each other to AIV is just plain bad form. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC # 5 and the templates are frivolous and disruptive, not helpful, and placed by a clearly disruptive user. The user also keeps reinstating a frivolous PROD template, in direct contravention of the template guideline and policy. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all clear that she meets #5. Why don't you try explaining why you think she holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment on the talk page? It's not in the article. Beyond that, WP:AGF. You both seem to be acting in reasonably good faith, remarkably both vastly misunderstanding policy. Certainly, neither of you belong at AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Norway has no such thing as named chairs. Norway only has chairs. WP:ACADEMIC specifically includes those who hold "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." She is a full professor at "a major institution", that is her country's preeminent and oldest university which regularly ranks among the world's top 100 universities. This is also evident from the article itself (and the linked, relevant articles). Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Head to the talk page and sort it out. You should withdraw your AIV report. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for withdrawing your AIV report. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anne Hellum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anne Hellum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Hellum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Garchy (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This notice cannot be removed from Anne Hellum. Garchy (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paid-inclusion open access journals has been nominated for discussion

Category:Paid-inclusion open access journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

professor and civility

In your edit in professor, you referred to my edit as "nonsense". We should try to be polite in our interactions online. It's not just my opinion, it is an etiquette rule set out in WP:CIVIL. Thank you for your interest in the article and for contributing your ideas.😊OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bjerrebæk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to MDPI entry

Dear Bjerrebæk,

I saw your recent edits to MDPI's Wikipedia page.

1. This sentence is made without a reference: "MDPI is especially known for the controversy surrounding its inclusion on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies". How do you judge that MDPI is know for this controversy, rather than for the hard work we do every day to support the scholarly community? When I talk to our authors, editors, reviewers, and librarians - this is not discussed as an issue or something that "MDPI is known for".

2. The sentence "Although it was eventually removed from the list, Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to remove his list due to harassment from predatory publishers, and mentioned MDPI specifically." MDPI was removed in October 2015, well before Mr. Beall took down his list. Why would we pressure Mr. Beall to take down his list after MDPI was removed? It makes no sense - and I can assure you that we did not "pressure" his university. We did write a single letter to the university late 2015 to point out the defamation of MDPI on the blog of Mr. Beall, as he had misrepresented information about the company without validating his source or verifying the information in the post with us before publishing. However, I can assure you that we did not repeatedly contact the UC Denver to get Mr. Beall's list removed.

As a reference, you will see that we now have over 220 institutions which participate in our open access program: http://www.mdpi.com/about/ioap

Please consider to remove these two sentences from the introduction section. Of course fine to add information from the paper "What I learned from predatory publishers" in the section "Inclusion in Beall's list", as he does mention MDPI. But I kindly ask you to put that information in quotes, and to exclude from MDPI's introduction section.

Best regards, Alistair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.7.117 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bjerrebæk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your editing of the HiOA page

Hi, regarding your edit of the Oslo and Akershus University college I wish to know why it was changed instead of a new page about OMU being created? Because of this change there is no longer a page about HiOA which, despite being OMU, is different and has a different history.Ambraelle (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bjerrebæk&oldid=819996822"