User talk:Gatorinvancouver

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

I've reverted the Talk:7 World Trade Center back to where you started. You can also just do "undo" if you find yourself in such a spot again. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel better now.

Predatory lending talk page[edit]

Would you mind moving your discussion to a new section? Right now, it's mixed in with a discussion from March 2007, and although the subjects are similar, I think your points may get buried on such a long page. Editors tend to look at the bottom of the page for the latest discussion. I can do it for you, if needed. Flowanda | Talk 18:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See if the section works without breaking up the discussion. If it does make the discussion too hard to follow, we'll try something else. Talk:Predatory lending/Archives/2012#Changes to lead paragraph. Flowanda | Talk 19:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page stuff[edit]

Replying on your own talk page is the same as any other page...just click on the "edit the page". You add colons at the beginning replies to indent and break up the page. To start a new discussion, just click on "new section" and the form will give you a space to add a heading that it will format for you. You can read more at WP:TALKPAGE. And I hope you're not feeling reluctant to edit in the main space (the articles themselves) can't do anything that can't be easily fixed or cleaned up. Flowanda | Talk 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and sorry for the mess I created on your talk page trying to get back to you. (At one point, desperate to get balck at you, I wrote in a section that had nothing to do with our conversation. I'll try to edit it out.) I will eventually edit the main section we've been discussing. For the last little while I've been in bed with excruciating back pains.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivar Kreuger[edit]

I have added a comment on the talk page at Ivar Kreuger, please see there. In fact, as somebody stated above, all comments should be added at the bottom, but sometimes, as a direct answer to something written there you can add a little above, or on very short pages even in the middle somewhere. On long pages, your comments in the middle of the page might not be noticed, like in this case. Kraxler (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment is just above the section headed "Kreuger group loans to foreign states from 1925-1930". It is dated August 24. Kraxler (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is correct to answer at the other user's talkpage. That make Wikipedia show an automatic message (orange strip at the head of page) when logging in next, so the user gets aware that there is a message to read. Many people do it differently though, risking that the message is not arriving at its destination.

I didn't read Portnoy's book, and I don't know the author. You will have to judge for yourself after reading. I read Allen Churchill's book The Incredible Ivar Kreuger which gives a good overview but has a lot of quite controversial content which I would not dare to add to the article. On the other side, Churchill gives a good and plausible description of Kreuger's Ponzi scheme. The Swedes try to whitewash Kreuger, but the known facts confirm the frauds and the Ponzi scheme, and explain his suicide. The conspiracy theories do not make any sense. I am personally very fond of conspiracy theories, some make sense and could convince you that they are true, and some are quite entertaining. In this case, the theories that Kreuger was a benefactor who wanted to avoid war, and who was murdered because his enemies wanted to steal his fortune, are plain nonsense. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries[edit]

You didn't do anything wrong. The message I just dropped you was just a standard welcoming template with some (usually) helpful links. You certainly are not required to log on to make minor corrections...

To answer your questions, per WP:BOLD you are welcome to make bold changes to any article at any time. If someone disagrees, then you did to work out a solution via talk, but if you edits you want to make are unlikely to cause objection than you should just make them. You don't need anyone's permission to act here. Footnotes will automatically be numbered by the software. Just use <ref>Your reference info here</ref> at the end of a sentence to reference that sentence. Then add {{reflist}} in the "References" section of the page. See WP:REF for more info, if you like.

I am glad to see you plan on contributing more. Feel free to ask me for help at any template or add {{helpme}} to your talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid reply.

But I think I must try this out in the sandbox first. I want to keep most of the article - with its footnotes - intact but want to insert and/or correct certain statements; so the numbering of the footnotes would have to change. Do I understand you correctly that this process automatic for insertions?

It's been a heavily charged discussion, with some Swedes (or claiming to be) saying it's heavily biased and nothing good is said about Ivar Kreuger. He certainly was a very interesting man.

I would like to contribute but have no desire to get into an "editing war".


First of all: I am going to read up at the links you graciously provided and hopefully try things out in the sandbox.

Second: I have to reread the definitive book on the man even though I took extensive notes because much in the present page is correct but so much needs to be added and/or changed and I like precision.

Please give me some time. Life will go on whatever the entry Ivar Kreuger says at the Wikipedia.


Gatorinvancouver (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Please edit any way you like, Wikipedia is a work in progress, if anybody disagrees they can edit again later... The physical evidence in any case very rarely rules out either suicide or murder, one has to analyse the surrounding circumstances. This always leaves doubt and causes controversy in "conspiracy-minded" people, don't worry. My guess, why the gun was in his left hand? He held the gun both-handed, and it got stuck and slid down in his left; or - remember he suffered a stroke a few days before - he was partially paralysed on his right side, and had to make do with his left. It is not so difficult to shoot with your left hand in your heart, pulling the trigger with your thumb, take a toy pistol and try it. The human arm is long enough to reach most of your front side anyway. This evidently false affirmation, that it would be "virtually impossible" to shoot oneself in the heart with a gun held in the left hand makes me doubt this whole book, it shows bias to accept the conspiracy theory, for whatever reason... Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    • Please do not get me wrong, all I said was that this evidently false statement (it is evidently false to state that it is "virtually impossible to shoot oneself in the heart with one's left hand") makes me doubt the book. Certainly I can not express any opinion about it without having read it. Besides, I know that rarely something can be "ruled out", but that the historical context and the physical environment must be considered to arrive at a conclusion. The French police concluded suicide, I doubt that the Sûreté would hush up the murder of a foreigner. Fact is that no autopsy could be done because there was not one single piece of evidence pointing in this direction at the time. (French law prohibits autopsies if there is no evidence of foul play.) Besides, nobody talked of murder at that time So, you see, a conspiracy theory in this case needs some hard evidence, this statement that one can not rule out etc. is what was later introduced when Ivar's brother started his whitewash campaign. All these murder allegations can be traced back directly to this source. You see, I am very fond of conspiracy theories, most of them depict actually the truth, contrasting with official hush-up versions, but in the case of the alleged Kreuger murder there is no reason, no motive and no historical background for murder. Think about it.
    • I never engaged in an edit war, and I will not. But certainly you have to be careful with the Swedes who patrol the Ivar Kreuger article. Wikipedia rule is: to avoid controversial content. This can be done by stating both conflicting views with its sources, or, when in doubt, leave it out of the article.
    • That Kreuger suffered a stroke a short time before his death is mentioned by Allen Churchill in his book The Incredible Ivar Kreuger. I have to admit that Churchill is not 100% reliable either. He was a journalist, and too much chasing a "big story" to adhere strictly to the truth or to (now established) Wikipedia guidelines... Kraxler (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that you are an economist, so you should be able to identify a Ponzi Scheme when you see one. Could I get your expert opinion on this? Did he run a Ponzi scheme, or was he an abnegated international benefactor, or was he something else altogether?
Certainly did the French police consider the possibility of murder, that is common procedure in the case of a bullet wound. The Sûreté was at that time one of the most respected police forces of the world, almost equal to Scotland Yard, and quite versed in international affairs. Besides, France was at that time a democratic country, so the murder theory in this case involves a conspiracy of Swedish, American and German bankers, the French police, Kreuger's family and employees. That's a tall order, I think. So far as I'm aware, after the investigation by the French police ruled out murder (yes, they ruled it out), nobody talked of murder for decades. The family stayed at home, ashamed, they did not go to Paris, and they did not question the French police at that time. The murder theory can be traced back to a much later started whitewash campaign by his brother Torsten. As to enemies, please consider that Kreuger's "financial empire" was the only that was still standing during the Depression, it crashed only after his death. Of course, the bankers who dried up his credit knew already of the Ponzi scheme and that he was in trouble (like Madoff recently), but the public still clung desperately to the one rock in the ocean, so the guess that some client who had lost money with Kreuger funds has no basis. That one of the bankers killed (or ordered to) Kreuger, is absurd. With his sudden death, the crash must have been much worse then a slow sell-out could have been, so they all potentially lost more money than with Kreuger living and giving up control slowly, masking it as "deals"... But as you are the finacial expert, please consider the possibilities, and tell me your conclusions...
By the way, heart shots do not always cause instantaneous death. Many heart-shot victims die within a few minutes, after the brain gets no oxygene anymore due to circulation breakdown. A heart-shot victim could have grabbed the pistol again, or held on to it despite the kickback, depending on the position in which it was held. I know its pure guesswork, but so is the murder theory. Lying down on his back, there would be no bleeding, the wound being at the top, so nobody could say if yes or no. Being murdered, one would think that Kreuger was standing, then the wound must have oozed anyway at least a little, but apparently it didn't, and lie down on his own bed at noon would be rather convenient, if not positively inviting, for a murderer, who entered without forcing the door... You see, some circumstances rather do rule out murder... Kraxler (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on Kreuger. In fact, he seems to be one of these controversial personalities which divide people's opinions. As you can see at the subject's Wiki article. Actually, I agree with you. Kreuger was very ambitious and very vain (by the way, this was the reason why he did not shoot himself in the head, which makes an ugly picture in the papers). He opened a construction company to get rich, and when he was called upon to save his family's ailing match business, he applied economical ruthlessness to the match competitors as he had done earlier with the other contractors. He certainly based his financial operations on these bona fide business operations, unlike Madoff or Ponzi who had no business at all. However, I think that a much deeper analysis of the financial structure of his match business, especially the "foreign loans", is required. Also, after the 1929 crash, during the Depression, he certainly struggled to survive, and was not scrupulous about his methods... Kraxler (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


  • To correct a footnote, you have to find where it was appended in the text. In this case "Scheéle" or "Schele", this is footnote # 15, so scroll up to the place where this is seen as a small upper number, it is in the chapter "The end of the Kreuger empire". Click on the edit button for this section, and in the edit box will appear the text with the name Sune Scheéle followed by a Reference bracketed like this < ref>.......</ref > (without the spaces). The text which appears at the bottom of the article is in these brackets, just edit there.
  • As to Partnoy's opinion on the murder theory, he clearly does not want to get pinned down to something, it sounds like a lawyer trying to keep all options open, but he saw the unlikelyhood of both motive and opportunity for murder. The murder theory is much too much theory, it does not consider the practical aspect of murder/suicide, which includes the physical evidence and also the psychology of the victim. I bet an experienced detective can tell a suicide from a murder at a glance. It has to do with the crime scene: signs, or none, of struggle; blood stain patterns, or their absence; contact bullet wound; etc. The missing cartridge makes absolutely no difference here, since the murder theorists imply that the murderer straightened up the crime scene, washing blood away, dressing Kreuger in unruffled garments, combing his hair, putting the gun in his hands, or what not all, and then would have taken the cartridge away? That is absurd! It could have been missed, rolled into a gap between floorboards, or fell down on Kreuger himself and he swallowed it... I know, it's pure guesswork again, but... so is the murder theory.
  • I still think that the article is badly written, the importance of Kreuger for the securities regulations is not properly explained (he certainly has made history there), there are these unconnected lists, and the "Italian bonds" are coyly omitted... Kraxler (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I will wait for your final version of the article then, take all the time you need. Kreuger has been dead for decades, so there is no urgency.
I have created almost 500 new articles, mostly bios, and have completed the lists in which these appear. What made me do that was actually not any anxiousness that the Wiki users should read them, they are the fruit of my research into historical and political events, and the people involved in them, a matter which interests me deeply. I am glad that I can share the info with other people, via Wikipedia, but that is not my principal aim. So, I hope that you enjoy your research, and in the end can form your own opinion on Kreuger, arriving at a conclusion based on the available facts, evidence and reasoning. Kraxler (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewritten version of Ivar Kreuger[edit]

I erased what I had written because I gave up trying to rewrite the article here after some bot reverted my talk page back to an earlier version. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing your talk page[edit]

Other users should leave mssaes on your talk page, but NOT edit it otherwise. It sems a bot (an automated computer program) named HG edited your page and then user Webex. It is unclear to me why this happened. Many users do rewrites of articles, especially controversial ones, on their user page, and there should be no problem. I will check moe thoroughly later... ----

Still need help?[edit]

You posted a request for help on my talk page about a month-and-a-half ago. I was inactive at the time, but am active on Wikipedia again now. Iassume you probably get things straightened out by now, but if you still have some old or new questions, let me know. Sorry about not responding previously, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is all good[edit]

No worries about the message error. It happens from time to time. :) Cheers!Calaka (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ivar Kreuger[edit]

I will look at it tomorrow. The "But that is wrong" part is too specific for an introduction. The Ponzi scheme could stand there without problem beside genius, swindler and Leonardo of larcenists, or it could be removed. What really happened to his "financial empire" should be explained at length somewhere farther down. Kraxler (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, delete the Ponzi scheme from the introduction. You could mention it, and why it is not quite correct (Kreuger's "financial empire" certainly had traces of different schemes and plans), and what would be a correct evaluation and name for it, farther down. Kraxler (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not waste any time debating with me, just edit as you see fit. I will read the final text as it appears. The just above paragraph was a suggestion of mine, because many people believe that Kreuger ran a Ponzi scheme, and some authors have actually written as much. (if you search for "ivar kreuger ponzi scheme" on google, you get 7250 hits...) This makes it necessary, in my opinion, to address the question. Kraxler (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your courtesy very much. But, sorry, I had no time yet to read your edited version. Take your time, we will discuss any further issues on the Ivar Kreuger talk page, anytime. And, please do not be frustrated, I am just one reader, there are thousands more who want to know something about Ivar Kreuger. Good luck. Kraxler (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually checked on the German Wikipedia, and some unnamed user, apparently a Swede or somebody who speaks Swedish has added the pronunciation of many Swedish names, among them of Ivar Kreuger. So I have changed it. It seems that he did not keep the old Kröger pronunciation but used something like the German name Krüger. The meaning of these names is the same, these two are dialect variants. Kraxler (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking everywhere before sending an apparently wrong pronunciation. I actually checked in the Swedish WP, and there is none added. It's ok, now, I suppose. Krüger or Kröger meant in most places a person who served beer, in jugs. In Britain it would be a "publican" or an "inn keeper". The meaning of "potter" (who makes jugs) must be much more ancient, I had never heard that before, and I am German. Kraxler (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

New Section[edit]

To open a new section in an article, you click on "edit" for the section immediately above your planned addition, and at the bottom of the window that opens you add " == (Header of the new section) == " and then write the text. After saving your work, next time the section will appear with an own "edit" button. Alternatively, you can add the new section at the top in the editing window of the section immediately below, for convenience one selects the one that is shorter. Kraxler (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the "Swedish pronunciation" thing, it is noe the same as in German WP. I'm not really sure either what some of the signs mean, especially what type of "r" that should be, some expert might know.

The man that made jars, was a potter ("Töpfer" in German). Jars were originally a more vertical type of pot. That somebody made only jars, and no pots, is what I hesitate to believe. On the other side, the word "Krug", for a comprehensive reason, became the name of the place where the beer was served in jars, like "Dorfkrug" (the only pub in a village) and "Krüger" the man who ran it. As you said, it does not appear in the article, and is thus a "moot point". Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering, but I was off-line for a few days. I'm glad you solved the problem, though. Kraxler (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Kreuger changes[edit]

Hi! You are making substantial changes without any comments, which makes it really hard for others to evaluate and understand your changes. Perhaps you can add more comments when you make changes? Best regards Ulner (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! Please see my comments at the talk page for the Kreuger article. Best regards Ulner (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Btw, I am happy you are taking your time to improve Wikipedia articles. My intention was also to keep the Kreuger article in a good shape if someone reader would like to read it in the current state (by deleting the problematic section). Best regards Ulner (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


You wrote "I am disguted at what you have done". This is in violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Best regards Ulner (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gatorinvancouver! I'm really sorry for your mishap with the unsaved part, but it hapened to me several times already. When editing, always click on "show preview" this saves the page in your computer without having added it yet to the actual article. Besides, my internet connection sometimes breaks down, and then I lose everything I was working on. Or when trying to close one window of my computer, another comes popping up, and I close by accident the Wiki window, and I lose everything again... It makes me really desperate, but after some time I calm down and start again... Users who try to "help you with your aticle" are mostly well-meaning, but not quite familiar enough with the subject, I have the same problem sometimes, when people tell me about something they read in a summing-up of a secondary source, while I corrected that citing primary sources... (By the way, in some old movie somebody sad: "The opposite of well is well-intentioned.") One must be patient. There is no hurry to complete the Kreuger article, and it gets better and better, please don't worry. Good luck! Kraxler (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Book suggestion[edit]

Hello Gator, thanks for the book tip. I'll see if I can get hold of it. I'm fine, just started a new little project (New York State Legislatures, based loosely on the United States Congresses). And, no, so far as I know, it is not any violation of Wiki etiquette to write something personal on a user talk page. Kraxler (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello Gator, the general rule is:

  • add personal info at bio
  • add info pertaining to his investments/schemes at the scandal article
  • since there is a "main article" link at the top of the scandal section in his bio, keep this section very succinct (in my opinion it is already too big, most of it should be explained only at the scandal article).

Good luck! Kraxler (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not easy sometimes, Wikipedia editors tend to multiply the same info in different articles, or in the same article in different sections. I'd say you should work mainly on the scandal article, and add at his bio only strictly personal info. Kraxler (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Along those same lines, I reverted your most recent good faith edits at Bernie Madoff because they were simply links to pictures, which are not references. We could have a different discussion about whether the level of detail which names each individual craft is really necessary for the article, but in any case, just linking to pictures is not how we cite information. (Those pictures are copyrighted material and not suited for use on Wikipedia anyway.)  Frank  |  talk  21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear!

I just realised that it was Frank NOT you who deleted my edits.

Sorry, Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to discuss it Frank.

I take your word for it.


The above was meant to be a smiley. They Obviously don't work at WP


P.S. Maybe you could satisfy my curiosity and tell me what the numbers in parentheses mean and why they are sometimes red and green at other times? Thanks in advance.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see your watchlist, of course, but typically the + numbers in green indicate text that's been added to a page, and the - numbers in red indicate text that has been deleted from a page. Does that seem to match with what you are seeing?  Frank  |  talk  23:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:TWWPK, which talks about how to use the Preview feature to see what your edits will look like before you save.  Frank  |  talk  23:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have paid dearly for that in the past (most likely because of mistakes I made), so I'm reluctant but use it sometimes when there is not a lot of work involved.

Do I have to sign on my own Talk Page?

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Frank if you have the time, please. Just if the need arises:

How do I upload pictures which I took myself and own the rights to? Gatorinvancouver (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. I think you should still try to use Preview.
  2. Yes, you should sign your own talk page.
  3. I think it's best to go slowly and learn about editing pages (including your own talk page) before jumping in to upload pictures. It's actually pretty complicated stuff, and I'm not the best person to advise anyway.  Frank  |  talk  00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm focused on contributing content and that may (in the future) include images and graphs. I'll cross that bridge when I get there. Thanks anyway. Regards,

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gator, sorry to reply that late, I was rather busy these days. I think, an article on a neighborhood in a big town is ok to be written, but check if somebody hasn't done it already, with a slightly different name. An elementary school is certainly not notable enough, except if some very important person studied there, and even then possibly it's questionable. Please see WP:MILL, which explains the issue ("how microscopic") very well. Kraxler (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mount Pleasant, Vancouver has been created in 2007 already. But you could add something, if you think it should be there. Kraxler (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines[edit]

It would be much easier to have conversations if you would indent when replying to a particular comment, using some number of : characters, depending on the level of indent. That way, your reply is indented right below the comment to which you are replying. Also, it would be much easier to know what comments are yours if you sign them directly at the end of the last line of your comment, instead of going to a new line. So if you just finish a sentence and put the ~~~~ directly after a space, that will be more in line with the general way talk page conversations happen. You can take a look at WP:TALKPAGE for more information. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


The MS Vista user box is just that, a user box. It is not an advertisement for Microsoft anymore than stating you use public transport is an advertisement for your local city council. It informs people of my operating system, which is particularly useful if I ever have any technical issues, such as with custom JavaScripts. I will, thus, not remove it. Thank you for voicing your concern. --Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

and it is a trade mark. You are not authorized to use it. Therefore it is against WP policy. Please remove this advertising of a commercial product from the WP site. Thank you.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? I didn't make the userbox, it's been here for years, no one's complained. In fact, almost 200 other people use it, too. By your logic, Wikipedia can't make an article on Coca Cola because it's a trademark. That's not how trademarks work, at all, so before accusing me of random violations of trademark law, please actually try and understand how it works. Also, when you claim that something is against policy, you must actually provide a link to the policy in question. This is called the burden of proof and is the fundamental basis for rational argumentation.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 15:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It is nonsense to state that WP can't write about Coca Cola (or MS) without violating a trademark. Your box telling people what OS you are using does no such thing. I repeat, if you are not authorized by MS to use their trademark it is illegal. No further proof needed. Moreover, I don't believe it is the function of WP to help you with technical issues you might have; in your case contact MS. Besides, it doesn't make a difference what OS or hardware you use to edit WP, I believe. WP is there to be edited and read. For that it is irrelevant what OS you are using. What's next on your user page: "Intel inside"? Or the brand of your video adaptor? It is not only a violation of MS's trademark but is clearly advertising for a commercial product. I and many others contribute to WP to keep it ad-free. Lets keep it that way. This page does not belong to you and I request you adhere to the WP policy of "no advertising". I submit if it is [to hold up a sign] then your box showing you run MS Vista is too. Please conform to well known WP rules (e.g. no ads; illegal use of a trademark) without asking me to dig this up for you among the many rules and kindly remove that box. Thank you.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
the iamge of holding up a sign is down the page I linked to above. (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please cite the Wikipedia policy that you are referring to which would preclude users from mentioning specific trademarked operating system names. It is long-standing practice for users of Windows (and other commercial operating systems, including Mac) to identify themselves as such. If you believe there is a policy which prohibits it, please provide an explicit link to it. Nobody is suggesting that "Microsoft Windows Vista" is not trademarked; the question here is your claim that it cannot be used on a Wikipedia user page.  Frank  |  talk  18:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The trademark violation is a legal question. Most people know you can only use it with permission of the trademark holder, or people add an R surrounded by a circle to indicate it is a trademark. My main point related to advertising. Just about every Wikipedian knows WP is ad free. If you ever read a WP fundraising appeal you'd know that it is usually to avoid ads on WP. That is my main reason for contributing. Every child knows that this is advertising of a MS product (a shoddy one on top of it; my machine came bundled with it, so I know). Moreover, it is false advertising as the user's contributions are powered by his brain, not Vista.

In any case, what is the relevance of identifying the OS? You are editing on the server side, are you not? Advertising has no place on WP. Let's keep it that way by removing ads to MS. And that's what it is.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: A trademark is private property just like copyrighted items. Therefore they can only be used with the owner's permission. These are legal questions. WP makes this quite clear. WP is NOT a courtroom. So please stop acting like a lawyer talking about procedures. I suggest you read the new terms of use. While they don't mention trademarks specifically they do mention legal issues related to copyright. Trademarks and copyrights are private property and WP is quite clear in many places that there must be respect for private property.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If an editor wishes to identify what OS (or browser, or whatever) they use to edit with, they are allowed to do so. Microsoft is not paying for the userbox, and there is no other exchange of goods or services, so it is hard to see how it could qualify as advertising. Unless you can find (and link to) a policy (not an essay, not a guidelline, not a personal opinion, but a Wikipedia policy) that prohibits it, please do not ask, suggest, or attempt to require other editors to stop doing so.  Frank  |  talk  15:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Testimonial clearly is advertising]] whether MS pays, or not. And I clearly have the right to ask for it to cease.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
A userbox is not a testimonial. If you disagree, please take up the issue at WP:VILLAGEPUMP.  Frank  |  talk  17:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC) A trademark is NOT free content.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And a user page is not content. If you disagree, please take up the issue at WP:VILLAGEPUMP.  Frank  |  talk  17:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop acting like a lawyer. Whether it is content or not, it IS advertising. That is the point. I contribute to WP to help keeping it ad free. (I guess I'll have to reevaluate my financial support if advertising is allowed on some WP pages.) I might take the issue up at the village pump. Or maybe not. I've got better things to do than argue about the obvious, i.e. whether it is advertising or not. Moreover, it contributes absolutely nothing to WP to know which OS is used on an editor's machine. It's also irrelevant because it is not the OS on an editor's machine that is contributing to WP. It is the writer. I have never, ever, read a book where the author identified the word processor she used. What is the value of knowing the OS on an editor's machine? Nada.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but you may not force it on other editors without community support. What you are saying is against policy is not actually against policy, and you have not been able to provide any evidence that it is. Your financial support of Wikipedia is appreciated but, the Wikimedia foundation will not alter its policies to get it. And, whether you or I think it is relevant isn't the point - since it is not against any policy either of us can identify, it is allowed by default. If you wish to change policies, you are welcome to try to do so. If you do not wish to do so, that is certainly your right as well. All I ask is that you not persist in asking another editor to stop identifying what OS they are using to edit Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact is the MS logo and its trademark are private property and I believe that WP respects the property of others. This is made clear in several places, e.g. on copyrights and images. Why would that be different from the treatment of other property, e.g. trademarks and logos What is the relevance that the user uses gmail? Is it not advertising? What is the WP policy re advertising and the use of others' property? I think WP policy is quite clear on this in several places. (Please do not ask for the exact references as you perfectly know this to be the case.) I do not wish to change WP policies, I want existing ones enforced no matter how you twist the issue. Is your insinuation of my motives (e.g. changing WP policies) not against WP rules about how to relate to other editors? Aren't you supposed to assume good faith? Please state why you are for advertising on WP, as you clearly seem to be. I stated my case over and over again and I shall not spend much more time on this issue. I've got better things to do than argue about the obvious (i.e. is it advertising and the use of others' property or not) with you. What about if some clever Wikipedian gets MS or Ubuntu to pay them for putting their logo on their user page? Given what you stated above you would seem to be OK with this as you'd have no way of knowing. (I am not saying the user is getting paid but how would I know?) I am pretty sure that the editing is done on the server side. If so, it is most likely a Unix OS that the editing is done on, in which case your case (i.e. that the editing is done with the user's OS) flies out of the window (no pun intended :) )Gatorinvancouver (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree we both have better things to do than discuss this, and as long as you don't ask any editors to conform to your point of view on the matter, there will be no need to discuss it further.  Frank  |  talk  06:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It is you who wants to change WP policies, not I. You are attempting to impose your point of view not I. 1) WP is supposed to be free of advertising. There are 2 boxes on the UserPage which are clearly testimonial advertising. It does not matter whether MS pays for it or not; it is advertising. 2) WP claims to respect the property of others. The trademark and logo are the property of MS. Why is it not to be respected? Please look at the Wikimedia Trademark policy and ask yourself why the restrictive nature should not apply to other firms, e.g. MS. What is your "justification" for the ad for Google? If the user had put his/her email address there it would have a justification for being there. In this case it is nothing but advertising.
Frank wrote: "Nobody is suggesting that "Microsoft Windows Vista" is not trademarked; the question here is your claim that it cannot be used on a Wikipedia user page." My claim? It is the property of MS, so you need their permission. Pure and simple. Or do you contest the obvious? But as I said above, I am mainly concerned about the advertising not the unauthorized use of a company logo.
Moreover, the MS OS in question only launches the browser. The browser connects with the Wiki editor on WP. So to say 'one uses' this OS to contribute to WP is a bit far fetched. I am entitled to my opinions and I am entitled to voice them here. You claim I have no such right. That's a bit heavy handed, isn't it? So as a final and - I imagine - futile gesture (futile because the request will be ignored, I predict): I ask for the ads for MS and Google to be removed on the User Page of Newbiepedian.
There is no point in repeating anything I have said. So, I guess, this will be my last words on the subject matter here.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages"
Just to make it clear dear Frank: User pages ARE content contrary to your assertion above. Therefore - contrary to your assertion - WP policies re private property and advertising DO APPLY. Maybe you could be a little less dogmatic and a little more in the spirit of WP, i.e assuming good intentions on the part of others. And please, act a little less like the bully you SEEM to be. Thank you.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


What went wrong here? Arcandam (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

a Dutch message appeared. It seemed to ask for a registration and apparently had nothing to do with the article.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
here it is:"Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen!"Gatorinvancouver (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Article history: I removed it. You put it back in. I removed it again. Arcandam (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If that's what I did, I apologize. I made a mistake because I meant to remove it.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No problemo. When comparing revisions the left hand side is the old version (WP:DIFF). The page history shows a log of who did what when (and possibly why if they use edit summaries). Arcandam (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
ThanksGatorinvancouver (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)