Some cookies to welcome you! Welcome to Wikipedia, Iselilja! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
If you need assistance, email 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. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
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!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
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 wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com 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.
Hi Iselilja! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.
As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I also really like your recently edited scroll boxes, those are cool. I might just copy that if I ever update my user page. :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I like those scroll boxes too. I have stolen them from project pages. I would have liked to have similar ones for other topics, like WP:Norway, but they just use external links, and I don´t know how to make these scroll boxes. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!
Hi Iselilja! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!
Get involved by:
Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
Hi :-) We can't just allow this argument to go own forever and go in cirles. I opened a new discussion regarding who to put instead of Einstein: [1] I saw you made some good suggestions before, please feel free to offer any ideas! If you suggest some women it could make the discussion better! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I've uploaded a restored alt, and gave some notes there. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
And I really do apologise for what I found during the restoration - I really want this to be an FP, but with Wikipedians in the museum, it's hard to accept some things =/ Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Please, don´t apologize, though. I really appreciate the serious work you did to quality check the picture and search for a solution to problems. I got the impression that many liked the idea of having a featured picture of Henrik Ibsen, so just my bad for nominating a picture that didn´t have the quality I hoped it had. Unfortunately I don´t know much about photography, but when I have the visited the featured picture project a few times recently, I have got the impression it is a fine and serious corner of Wikipedia, where quality is in focus, as it should be. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't suppose you know which Wikipedians are connectd with the museum? I would like to contact them and see if we can get a better scan =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We have an excellent Wikipedian in residence at Norsk Folkemuseum, . His email is at the bottom of his userpage, if you prefer emailing instead of going to the talk page. Another user that I would assume have some contacts there is Roede. Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I was reading the latest Wikipedia Research articles and was reminded of your observation on Rhode Island Red's RCU. You should check it out: Free as in sexist? Free Culture and the Gender Gap by Joseph Reagle. Andrew327 02:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrew. An interesting article. I haven´t read it in depth (yet), but the things that are said about Wikipedia (Sue Gardner, Slim Virgin) is very similar to my own thoughts and experiences (allthough I haven´t personally had more problems on EN:WP than the one). And as is noted in the article, "more mature men" may find an aggressive, adolescent atmosphere equally tiresome. I guess I am interested in this, because while I was well aware that incivility and aggressivity is a common feature on many internet forums, I had expected Wikipedia to be a bit different. (I still have the VdS page watchpaged, so I have noticed there are accusations and insinuations floating around, in addition to the edit disputes. Hopefully things will calm down; if you get an admin to close the current RfC and leave it at that. And I hope you, like me, have some more positive experiences outside that page.) Best wishes and thanks for the article link, Iselilja (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, and thanks for the kind words. With the exception of some Scientology articles, the VanderSloot BLP really is the only place where I've seen the worst of Wikipedians. Andrew327 07:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013
I would like to invite you to join the Kindness Campaign, which is focused on encouraging a supporting and kind editing environment on Wikipedia. Andrew327 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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 template from the top of the article.
Why do you ask? The answer is short and simple, "No", and I would presume that Binksternet and everyone else would know. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I prefer to answer you after my RfA question is answered or the RfA is closed. I did intentionally make the question open, without any specific context. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
When I saw Iselilja's question, I knew she had a very strategic reason for asking it in that manner. ;) Btw, I think Drmies is a very good admin based on the way I've seen him handle some disputes recently. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your very friendly and helpful participation on the Pope Francis talk page. Wikipedia needs more editors like you! Have a great week. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thank you, allthough my contribution is very small. But I do appreciate those readers who take time to post corrections or suggestions to a protected page at the talk page, and find such input do help improve the quality of the article. A nice week to you, as well. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. To the contrary, your contribution is definitely not very small. Actually, I would describe it as valuable. You not only assist others, but you do it in a very pleasant, supportive, and encouraging way. Just accept the fact that you're a good editor and a good person. :P --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fascism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the Kings Hall section of Belle Vue Zoological Gardens definitely needs its own article. The Belle Vue article already seems too long and there is enough information regarding Kings Hall to give it its own article. The problem is I tried this before my block and got into an edit war which helped lead to my block. It's also worth mentioning I have next to nothing to add to an article about Kings Hall except more performers. Please help!! Evangp (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Evan. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page, which seems the right way to go. I am not so sure I can help you with much here. I notice the article is a featured article, which means it is considered among the best articles at Wikipedia, og there are probably one or more very qualified editors involved. Hopefully, they will respond to your input. I am not very familiar with discussions about splitting articles myself. At first glance, the current arrangement looks fine to me; but I have not looked deeply into it. Also, be a bit careful about asking for help from other users when you are in a discussion. You may be accused of canvassing. (There really are a lot of rules to consider at Wikipedia!). But feel free to ask me about something more general or practial, if you think I can be of help some time. Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
As you might imagine I'm afraid to create new articles after all the complaints about my references. Evangp (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, BBC is of course a very good source, and the article indicated that the building was notable, but it was a little bit thin as to why it was notable. I found this article from the local paper Lancashire Evening Post that gives a an overview of some of those who have performed, and some other information. In addition there is some more history here (BBC Domesday). Those three articles together could be the source for a nice article, I think. - I understand you worry about negative feedback, I am also worried about making mistakes or something people get angry about. There are actually many rules and many things to learn at Wikipedia, and the tone and reactions can be quite negative here sometimes. But don't give up. Just focus and learn and keep it civil all the time. Wikipedia needs editors. Happy editing and Happy Easter. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with my last article! I can't thank you enough. But my next proposed article is proving to be much more difficult! I'm referring to Jaap Edenhal in Amsterdam, Netherlands. I can never find good references on foreign venues. The list of notable acts that have performed there goes on forever. I hope you can assist me with some good references. No hard feelings if you simply don't have the time or the passion. Evangp (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed you're from Norway! That's great news because I plan to create an article on the Drammenshallen and a few other Scandinavian venues. Evangp (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you were right it was difficult to find sources on Jaap Edenhal. I could only find sources that mentions a band or artist have performed there, but no sources that sums up a list of artists or giver other good information about the concerts. Another thing; Jaap Edenhal is obviously primarily an icehall - where concerts sometimes take place. The icehall is combined with an outdoor icerink Jaap Eden baan that already has an article; Jap Edenhal should probably be included as a section in that article, like they have done at the Dutch Wikipedia. It will be much easier to find sources for Drammenshallen, but that hall is also now primarily a sports hall (particularly handball), so an article must reflect that. The major concerts were in the eighties. I'll help you with more sources about Drammenshallen, if you want. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you have time please help me find a few good references for Drammenshallen. Your help has been appreciated! Evangp (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at it; allthough not in depth. I just found that wording like "purest of the race" (paraphrasing) appears very outdated and not serious. Regardsless, of the origin of the people, it should be formulated in another way. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is serious to a fair few people in India! (I am not one of them, which might in part explain the death threats I've had in the past). I suspect that you will be reverted because a discussion was ongoing, but it will not be me who does it. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do you not rephrase it? I am not saying that "cradle in Kashmir" theory is a universally accepted approach, none of these are. But I am humbly suggesting that this merits a mention. If it weren't for the [who?] I would be in favour of the previous wording you deleted but I invite you to improve it further. Why are you deleting it? I am all open towards a source that explicitly claims that that assertion is false and that it's a discarded fringe theory, we may work towards a balance but outright removing it without citing a source in the talk that expressly refutes the "purest race theory" is tantamount to censorship. There are many sources that at least claim the theory is convincing. Not worth a mention?
(My net sucks and kindly give me a {{tb}} if you wish) Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 08:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the FA review for Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Thanks a lot for contributing to Aalborghallen! As for my question - do you know of an German editors that may be able to assist me in an article regarding Stadthalle in Erlangen, Germany? It was used extensively during the 1970s and early 1980s as a concert venue. I don't think it exists anymore. Evangp (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought maybe the Stadthalle was the current Heinrich-Lades-Halle, but I'm almost certain that isn't the same venue. I can't find much history on Heinrich-Lades-Halle either, so as you can see a German editor with some knowledge would be helpful Evangp (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, I don't really know any particular German editor. You might at the German Project talk page, allthough there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of activity there. Heinrich Lades Halles was built 1969-1971 Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your help! Love that portrait on your user page, most beautiful!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, allthough I didn't do much of course, I felt I "should have" added some more to the article since there were good sources and he could deserve a longer entry. I see it has been improved now. And as an AdF, it was hardly very tricky; As for the portrait, something I found at Commons; Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Although you had the best of intentions in blanking that child's page for privacy reasons, I request that in future (if you find instances of this sort of thing again) you notify Oversight, at <oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org>. Thank you. DS (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I will. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign finance. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
On 28 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
I must ask--especially since you seem to be one of the main proponents of the debate we are having on the aforementioned Wiki page--do you feel guilty because you are white? I feel no guilt because I am black--why should you feel guilt because you are white? And even if you do not, do you realize how racist that sounds? Imagine if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot: "I feel guilty because I am Black". "It is my fault I was enslaved." The media outcry would ring from here to the Moon and back. Why is it, that instead of lifting all peoples up in this multi-cultural diverse society that could potentially be a utopia for all, it is now Whites that must suffer as "retribution", and "punishment" for the crimes they have allegedly committed against humanity? All races commit murder, genocide, and enslave each other. The Whites simply have been the most visible--they're not even the most recent. According to the CATO institute, more blacks are currently enslaved in Africa (by other blacks), than were ever enslaved by whites. I seriously do not understand this concept of "White Privilege", and maybe if I was white myself, I would, but I feel, instead of tearing other races down, we should be building them up, don't you agree? 129.255.229.196 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I had the Whiteness studies article on my watchlist, which is why I reverted what I though was an unconstructive edit on your part. However, it's not me who have written the article, so in that way I am not the right person to address. And generally, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum, so it's not the right place to express political frustrations, advocate a cause and such. This will just get you blocked (as will unconstructive edits, as I guess you know). Regards,Iselilja (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well let me try this response thingy here. Thank you for your welcoming me to Wikipedia and thank you for your help. Sincerely. I wonder whether you could have intervened in a somewhat more detailed manner? More concrete? More constructive? And somewhat more delicately? I find it remarkable that ALL sentences I added have been erased, including those sourced with references as you rightfully demand from me. A peculiar form of contribution yours, which has been to erase and wipe out entirely. Is that the standard and norm with wiki? This is a sincere question by a novice. Just as one will not burn an entire forest because of one befallen bush, I would have understood if you had singled out the problematic passages and encouraged me to improve upon them or done so yourself. As you gather, I do not quite understand your method of operation here dear Iselilja. Well Well. Let us see how this develops. I shall improve upon my wiki skills and see how far that takes my efforts at completing the information given in that section on Galtung. You see, I have spent quite some time on that page trying to add more information rather than substract or erase what was there before. Always taking care to add the sources. Let me see what I can learn and improve. I hope you will remain fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factification (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh boy... this wiki-world is quite something. Pleas pardon the confusion on your colourful and tidy page. I don't quite get this system yet. It will take quite some time to do so. But so be it. I hope this does not infuriate you in any way, there is no harm intended. Just erase the contributions herein if they ought to be elsewhere. Regarding this passage, I wonder how on earth this is not valid sourcing since this is a public statement by an organisation. The passage you were iritated by is located between quotation marks which follow here: "In fact the original exchange between the journalist Ofer Adaret and Prof. Johan Galtung has been made available online[1] and shows that Ofer Adaret manipulated and twisted Prof. Galtung's statements by adding quotation marks and emphasis to words which Galtung never sent to him and by omitting essential qualifiers such as "hate-literature" which Galtung expressedly used in the original exchange." Have you verified the reference provided with the claim and looked into the document? If yes, please tell me how the claim made in the sentence preceding the reference is not corroborated by the juxtaposition of the primary email exchange and the article published subsequently by Ofer Adaret. I admit it takes quite some time to do it throughly but it is selfevident. There are words in the article published by Ha'aretz which are not in the original interview and there are important positions in the original interview which Adaret simply ignores. To stay away from ad hominems, one has no choice but to blame bizarre journalism for such an outcome. So please help me by explaining how this claim is not adequately sourced(Factification (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC))
Hello. I understand your frustrations. It is correct that I reverted all of your edits in one operation (using twinkle). I will take a look at it again. The reason I did it was that there seemed to be several neutrality issues, and the most serious: There were violations of the Biography of Living People rules, in the form of negative, not properly sourced statements about living people. Being a novice on Wikipedia isn't always easy, and editing a controversy section in particular is not easy to start with. I think the two most important rules to remember: 1) Wikipedia is meant to reflect reliable sources/mainstream media. 2) Be particular careful when writing about living people. I notice that some of your sources were from "transcend", but this may not count as a very good/reliable source in this context as it may not be seen as independent and not is an established news organisation, so be careful making negative statements about living people or definitive statements of anything based on "transcend" sources. I wish you luck in improving the article. If you are reverted again, a discussion should start at the talk page of the article (by you or by the one who reverts you). (This is an answer to your first comment. No harm done at all, but I inserted a headline now). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
As for the exchange between Ofer Adaret and Johan Galtung: The material you provide is a primary source and interpreting it would be considered original research, and original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." But I would suggest that you raise this question at the article talk page, where you can get input from more users than me. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I saw that you reverted an edit here with the reason that another prisonr's attack cannot be included in the article of Sarabjhit Singh, for that purpose, I had created an article, but that's under discussion for deletion. So I will request you to give your valuable comments here. Thanking you. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As you have opposed the merge too, should not the article be kept? Faizan -Let's talk! 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I chose not to vote keep or delete, as I didn't feel I knew enough about that person/event. If this is a widely covered story in Pakistan/India, perhaps it could be made into an event article "The Prison attack on Sanullah Hag" or something? But it is my opinion that the details of the attack on this man and the reaction to it doesn't belong in another person's biography, so I opposed merging. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but the article of Sanaullah is itself notable, it returned 0.2 million results from Google, despite comparison with Sarabjit Singh, isn't the article notable? Secondly it gave rise to many conflicts in Pakistan, Azad Kashmir, and a drawback for India-Pakistan relations. So just asking you for a review, otherwise your "Merge" support is welcomed. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this fix! Waiting for your reply. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted my edits there, and I am really thankful to you! Faizan -Let's talk! 15:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerd Kristiansen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian (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) 13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, I misunderstood about hyperlinking and that I managed to call her Stang. Yes, she is Fredrikke Marie Qvam. I was tired yesterday. Fixed (I hope). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you very much for your support and helpful comments! I have placed a request to appeal the ban against me here. I don't really know how to do these things. Please take a look and let me know if I did something wrong. Thank you again for your support. Nataev (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have never filled out or taken part in a discussion at that particular forum, so I don't think I know these things better than you. Taking a glance at it, I think you are doing OK. You might want to consider whether you want do make the appeal right away or take a little time for preparations, but that's your choice. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, thank you. This issue is really bothering me. Otherwise like you said I could appeal later. Let's see what happens. Best, Nataev (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi Iselilja! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You are clearly not editing in good faith. There is no rule that prohibits mentioning what a subject (in this case, a media outlet) has done or said on its own terms. The subject is a reliable source about itself. I shouldn’t even have added the link to the New York Times. I made the mistake of assuming good faith. Clearly you and the other editor were tag-teaming me, wasting my time, and censoring the article.24.90.190.96 (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am definitely editing in good faith and in accordance with my understanding of the rules. I think the problem is your claim stated above "The subject is a reliable source about itself". At Wikipedia, that is only partially so. Now, of course, I don't doubt that Vdare has written about the Richwine affair. The question is, whether Vdare's writing about this issue is particularly notable. In order to establish that, we will need secondary sources that refer to or comment on what Vdare have written on the matter. The tag teaming you refer to, is simply two or more editors holding the same opinions about the rules, and editing accodingly. However, I would recommend that you start a discussion about the matter at the Vdare talk page, where more editors might chime in, and we might get a broader set of opinions. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
He is a pretty talented penguin. I'm not surprised to see him editing Wikipedia, and I hope he finds articles to edit where he can avoid any COI. Pburka (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, he is obviously very upset by the "mascot" label, which he claims there is no source for. Think he regarded it as a BLA violation ...
On 8 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Said Amirov, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Said Amirov, the mayor of Makhachkala, has survived fifteen assassination attempts, including one that left him wheelchair-bound? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Said Amirov. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, what do you think of this article: Lillehammer-kuppet? I plan to translate it in total and then upload in one, I have started here, do you think it could be of interest for DYK? If so, could you help me nominate it when I am done translating it? Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, that seemed like an excellent article, and I would happy to nominate it for DYK (be aware that there will be another reviewer of the article). The criteria for qualifying for DYK is mostly technical: A new article must be somewhat longer than a stub and within core policies (including well-referenced, which your article appears to be). The most important thing is to nominate it within 5 days after creation. But I am here quite regularly, so shouldn't be a problem. There is also supposed to be an interesting one sentence "hook" (do you know that...?), which must have a clear reference. You can either suggest a hook to me here on my talk page, or I can find one for you when I nominate (shouldn't be difficult, considered the topic). You might have seen that I nominated the Kai Holst article (caught it before the 5 days deadline, I think); then I just chose the murder suspicion for hook. If the reviewer finds that the DYK criterias are met, the article automatically goes in the queue for a mainpage spot (where it normally stays for 8 hours). Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have translated the article - see this link - but I assume it could use some copy editing. Could you have a look at it? Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I have looked at it, and it looks very fine. I will do a little copy-edit tomorrow (although, I too struggle with getting the English language correct). Do you have any suggestion for a hook? (If not, I will find one). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your kind help, I have uploaded the article now, you find it as Operation Claw. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Iselilja, I wanted to move this here rather than detract from the discussion about Russavia at ANI. But in response to your comments, a very large number of images and media on Commons (and enwp) are originally published here. The hockey player at the right is one of my uploads and was never published elsewhere previously. In the case of original research, Wikimedia is accepting on good faith my claim that this person really is Lee Stempniak. If we did not allow original publication/research of media contributions, it would quite literally result in millions of files becoming ineligible for use. In my view, there really isn't any difference between my photograph, and Russavia/Pricasso's video of him creating his artwork in this regard. In fact (and imo, of course), given Pricasso's notability lies entirely in the method he uses to create his works, his providing a video of his technique would be something to be greatly appreciated if not for the fact that the contribution is being used to troll Jimbo. As to the concern about caricatures and giving offence, Wikimedia has consistently ignored requests from external groups for removal on the basis of someone being offended. Muhammad/Depictions of Muhammad is a good example, as the talk page of the former will show. But there is an argument to be made about an upload incidentally causing offence vs. something uploaded deliberately to cause it. Just my own thoughts! Resolute 18:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply (and a very fine photo you have taken). I think you are right in many ways, and I was writing quite impulsively on a topic I don't know a whole lot about. I know of course that we can upload original photos of celebrities etc. to illustrate articles and verifiability is not my concern here. And you may be right that the Pricasso article as it currently is, is quite similar to you or someone else adding a photo of a hockey player to a hockey article. I was rather commenting under the pretext that the article included a new "artwork", (portraying in some way Jimmy Wales), not elsewhere exhibited, published etc. That wouldn't appear right, even apart from the specific harassment issue that might be present. A Wikipedia article on an artist shall in my opinion only present present art of that artist that is already known to the public via exhibitions etc. (material presented at homepages may perhaps be a greyzone in some instances). Wikipedia articles shall not be an exhibition room for the artists where they can choose to launch new materials etc. (not that I think many artists would have any interest of using Wikipedia that way, but there might be some instances). The Mohammed caricatures that you mention may illustrate the problem very well: The reason Wikipedia includes these caricatures is because they have gained notability outside Wikipedia; Wikipedia is just reporting on a controversy that originates outside Wikipedia, Now, image a situation where Jyllandsposten had refused to print those caricatures in the first place. Then instead, a friend of Kurt Westergaard decides to write a Wikipedia entry on Westergaard and include the caricatures (that have never been printed) in the Wikipedia article. The caricatures then gain notority via Wikipedia - and riots, murders and terror attacks occur as a result of these caricatures being spread originally via Wikipedia. The latter would of course not be OK. Wikipedia is not supposed to create news; only to parrot them. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
On 24 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kai Holst, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that many family members and friends of Milorg member Kai Holst, who officially committed suicide, believed he was murdered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kai Holst. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
