Jump to content

User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don´t think I have anything to contribute at this point. Is it really ALL people that goes to hell in these books?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama

Hi. I have read your latest response on the Obama talk page and wanted to let you know that I have responded to it. Look forward to further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


I owe you a drink

Please read my reply to your posting(s) today at the Talk:The Godfather page. No hard feelings I trust? Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A desperate act from this user to placate you, don't be fooled. Him and Ring are continously backing each other up, look at Ring's history, a continous edit warrior. The discussion on Godfather is an old one (look at the talk archive) and was unresolved, I came back to it after a period of trying to put similar plot edits in other film articles, and opened an RFC so that others can see the behaviour of these two. To my amazement, though unsurprisingly, they now support the inclusions you were putting forward which I and darkwarriorblake tried to earlier, but this is again just to cosy up and prevent them from seeming obstructive. Look at how they responded to me on the talk page and the talk archive. --JTBX (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer, no hard feelings. Consider me placated. ;-) JTBX, I´m not a very passioned editor, and I choose not to comment further right now. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem dude. --JTBX (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That´s the best kind of problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand that...lol. Right now I'm assuming (perhaps foolishly) good faith towards Ring and GGJ despite their attacks against me for no reason other than trying to edit an article.--JTBX (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I would appreciate more of your input, but if you don't have the time, completely understandable, bye.--JTBX (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång – Ha,ha! It is the best kind, isn't it? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but your page is still on My watchlist and I paid your User page a visit following a revision today. Could not resist translating, "Ur Mattoidens sånger, 1914. Dikten tillhör de "nedanförmänskliga visor" som med ett ytterst avskalat formspråk vill uttrycka djurs, växters och, som här, urbergs innersta väsen. Dikten skrevs mot slutet av Frödings liv. På Wikipedia finns en artikel om Gråbergssång ... From Mattoidens songs, 1914. The poem belongs to the "below human ballads" that with an extremely stripped-down form language expresses animals, plants and, as here, primary rock essence. The poem was written towards the end of Fröding life. On Wikipedia there is an article about Waste rock song ..!"

I don't understand the "Waste rock" bit though. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Waste rock refers to Gangue, which is a possible translation of gråberg (that I was completely unaware of). In context though, Fröding is talking about This, i.e. grey mountains and stonehills. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you the two hyperlinks; very informative. Pretty photograph of the dry stone wall too. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

... and we like 'hearing' you. So don't stop! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Wow, google translate really impresses sometimes. Health and good luck to you and your beloved next year as well! I should try to visit Wales sometime.


Blackadder : Have you ever been to Wales Baldrick?
Baldrick : No, but I've often thought I'd like to.
Blackadder : Well don't, it's a ghastly place. Huge gangs of tough sinewy men roam the valleys terrorising people with their close-harmony singing. You need half a pint of phlegm in your throat just to pronounce the placenames. Never ask for directions in Wales Baldrick, you'll be washing spit out of your hair for a fortnight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, have you seen this gem? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7702913.stm Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You are priceless; the Blackadder quote had me laughing out loud ("lol") but the link is too much. My ribs still hurt from laughing. Thank you for such a gem. How did you find it? It is dated Friday, 31 October 2008.
Oh, you should come to Wales. It is so different from England.
Amazing, Friday, 31 October 2008 – would you mind if I gave my best pal on Wikipedia, Martin, a link to this strand? I would do it indirectly via "your contribution this morning on my Talk page".
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sharing is caring. I don´t remember when I read about the sign, but it´s hard to forget. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That's lovely. (as we say in Wales) –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Ideas.
Message added 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello there!

Check it out Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Ideas#Apocalypse. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I´ve responded on that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad Påsk också!

Ja. Det var mitt sätt att säga: Det är inte den enda källan... In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well done.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why only Ghosts here ?

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I wonder if you can reply me, why I find GHOSTS ONLY over here? No real names, real people, emotions? Can Ghosts run Wikipedia better than actual and real people ? Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! And welcome to my talkpage. Well, there are plenty (but a minority) of people that use their own names, like Suzanne Olsson, or the fellow writing above on this page, Gareth Griffith-Jones. At least I think they do. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I also think they are real people. My username is a line from a poem I´ve liked since highschool. I generally prefer anonymity when I post on different web-forums, there´s a kind of freedom (that I try not to abuse) in having such discussions in their own separate world, so to speak. Even if you dislike what I write, you won´t stop by and spraypaint my house. Or write mean things about me that my boss finds when he googles my name. Well, you still may, but at least it is a little harder. I, and I think a lot of people with me, would not edit Wikipedia if we were forced to register with our actual names. One can call that spineless or whatever, but I can live with that. I think Wikipedia (also democracy) benefits from allowing people to comment under alias.
Emotions. Yes, I´ve heard of those (joke). Here´s how I see it. We (editors) are very very different, as are our motivations to be here. We are allowed to edit this quite amazing site on the agreement that we make it better. To do this we use rules and discussions, often about things we care GREATLY about (take a look at the discussions at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship for example), and sometimes consider more important than life itself (we also take offense for very different things). For these discussions to accomplish anything, it is often necessary to approach them in a cool and detached way. This may make some of us seem a bit like Vulcans (or just rude) at times, but it is, when all is said and done, often helpful. Many things need and should be said, but often Wikipedia is not the place for them. They belong in personal blogs, articles, books or other forums.
Well. I think this is the longest text I´ve ever written on Wikipedia, so I hope I understood your question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, we have not communicated before, so please do forgive my typing here. But I would mention that I read that in the last month a Wiki-user who used his real name and participated in an Afd received a letter from the attorney of the person whose page was deleted claiming various damages. The other Wikipedians who did not use their own names in the Afd received no letters. So there are good reasons. History2007 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This diskussion, right? And please feel forgiven ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It is all over the web in fact, even the ACM website. I think he should have told them to call the official Wikipedian law firm - pretty well known firm in fact. And thank you for the forgiveness. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I read that blogpost, interesting stuff! I hope they back off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get the official Wikipedian law firm to send them a letter to back off, or else... History2007 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, So lively and so lovely a discussion. I now believe, it very much in order to work in cognito, at least as Editors on Wikipedia. (And I have learned how to 'indent') :-) . Regards , be well. Dr Muhammad Ali (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, perhaps a few days to late now, though :P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is another interesting discussion concerning anonymity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
And perhaps another one... History2007 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I confirm that I really am Gareth Griffith-Jones –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the french story is really bizarre. I thought it was an april fools thing first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it was on April 7. Yet, it was funny in a way because they are now mentioned here. Reminiscent of you know who, of course... History2007 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
And Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station is now available in 28 languages. Sweet! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I have worked out the OBITUARY comment now ... see my Talk
Well done!
— Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard|—09:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lena (actress)

Heya! I was interested in getting your thoughts on how Lena's name should read in the intro sentence. I changed it to Lena Kumar in the article per her request, but have also noticed that the name Lena Abhilash has much stronger sources and is used more frequently. Was thinking of something like: "Lena Abhilash, known professionally as Lena Kumar, or Lena, is..." ? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That works for me, I looked at Martin Sheen to have something to compare to. I´m assuming that Lena Abhilash is her "legal" name, but I have no idea how that works in India. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, she claims that "My official name is Lena Kumar", so maybe that should be "Lena Kumar, or Lena (previously Lena Abhilash), is...". Then again, "official" can mean several things. It´s not crystal-clear, this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
It is puzzling, I agree. Lena Kumar, aka Lena Abhilash is documented to be married to Kumar Abhilash, but we're being asked to delete mentions of Kumar Abhilash. Reasonably speaking, if she came into notoriety as Lena Abhilash, and if the reliable sources support Abhilash, then maybe Lena Abhilash is a reasonable name to start the lead with? Alternatively, if we can find a birth name, it would also seem reasonable (a la Madonna (entertainer) or Roseanne Barr) that Lena's birth name be mentioned first, then her other names. "Lena Birthsurname (known professionally as Lena Abhilash, Lena Kumar, and Lena) is..." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Today is a holiday, so why shouldn´t I spend some of it googling an Indian actress I never knew existed until yesterday? This strange willingness is what´s makes Wikipedia go round. From what I can see in the articles sources, "Lena" wins by far (and the one-name-thing seems fairly common among indian actresses), and one source call her "Lena Abhilash".
Comparing google results for ""lena kumar" actress" and ""lena abhilash" actress" seems to STRONGLY favor the later, and keep in mind that our article calls her Kumar on the word of a wikipedia-user only, that´s not good. There is also a FB-page for Lena Abhilash that`s probably her. So we should not call her Kumar in our article for now, and not reinstate it until we have some WP:RS on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Man, bummer holiday! I think you and I are on the same page on this. I saw your Talk Page note, as well. And now I shall take up no more of your holiday! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over Swedish royalty

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. This is from a recent report at WP:AN3. What do you make of this passage from Svenska Dagbladet: "Nu blir han en del av kungafamiljen, men om han även blir en del av kungahuset är ju inte klart. Titeln återstår att se, den meddelas enligt riksmarskalken först i samband med bröllopet, konstaterar Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg." I tried out the Google Translator, and it seemed to think that O'Neill's relationship to the 'kungahuset' was not yet clear. Is that what 'inte klart' is saying? You can probably read this better! Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, but that has since then been made clear, see [1] (he´s not a part of kungahuset). The strange thing is though, Tarras-Wahlberg seems to be wrong about him becoming a part of the (extended) royal family. She was spokesperson for the royal family for a big part of my life, and I would normally take her word for it, but this [2] should be the best WP:RS source on the subject. It sounds strange that the kings son-in-law is not a member, but that´s how these things can work, it seems. Note for example that the kings sisters are royal family, but not their spouses. I hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I´ve raised the question here [3] as well, since the swedish article says he IS a member of the royal family, unsourced though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The quote above from Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg says "Nu blir han en del av kungafamiljen, men om han även blir en del av kungahuset är ju inte klart". If we can trust that, would you read her as having said he is definitely in 'kungafamiljen' but his status in 'kungahuset' is still not clear? EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
What she says is "Now he will become a part of kungafamiljen (called Current members and Extended family in Swedish Royal Family), but if he will also be a part of kungahuset (called Current members in Swedish Royal Family) is not clear."
  • Yes, she is saying that he is definitely in kungafamiljen, and she should normally be trusted on this subject, but according to the website maintained by the court she is wrong (as in he is not mentioned as a member of kungafamiljen). Could be because a lack of updates, but that seems unlikely.
  • Yes, she is saying that his status in kungahuset is still not clear, and that was true when she said it. It is no longer true since the court issued a pressrelease that made it clear (he´s out). Glad Midsommar! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
So, unless the court web site is updated, we should still not say he is in the kungafamiljen? EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Right, we shouldn´t. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Supervolcano (disambiguation) was accepted

Supervolcano (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lugia2453 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Christmas dinner
Christmas dinner
Machinima of Santa Claus's reindeer filmed in Second life

Imploring that Gråbergs Gråa Sång enjoys a sumptuous Christmas holiday and a naughty New Year! First play this → →

Now play this!
I dare you to tell me that you did not smile.

Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 02:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Diolch yn fawr. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Diolch i chi hefyd! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

African American lead straw poll

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:African American#Straw poll. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

Hi. Thanks for adding the infoformation about khat now being illegal in the UK to the Somalis in the United Kingdom article. I knew it was being made so, but the legislation had passed me by. I have restructured the section a bit to try to make it flow a bit better. I hope you don't mind, and please do feel free to make further edits or revert my changes if you don't agree. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edits and heartily approve! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Please do feel free to lend your views on the discussions underway on that article's talk page. We could do with more voices. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

A photograph of Charles Darwin

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

New DOB RfC

If you wish, please join in. —Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And now for 2016

A view of Lake Bondhus in Norway, and in the background of the Bondhus Glacier, part of the Folgefonna Glacier.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

NG

I haven't looked at that article for awhile. It seems more is afoot than mere puffery. I suggest we take the discussion to the relevant talkpage to inform interested editors.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Élizabeth Teissier

Right. I've added a filmography, and eyed over the biography - there's a bit more in the French article, but it's uncited, and the only thing I can find mentioning it I think stole the Wikipedia content from the French article. The French article has more biography, but mainly because it uses the list in reference 5 as article text, and includes a summary of the sociology degree. One possibility might be to add the filmography to the biography section. (I've now done so) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Adam Cuerden! The current shape of the article seems much better to me, and it´s a positive surprise that so many of "her" movies are bluelinked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I think part of it was fixing up the structure of the French Wikipedia article once all the uncited or simply bad bits were removed. There's so much more material in the French article criticising her failed predictions; A lot of it seemed to be borderline original research or had no real prominence. I'm sure it's correct, mind, but it needed cut down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

this is an interesting article -

Here: [4]. It's about the former boss of the person we were discussing. One may or may not use it to draw one's own conclusions about things. LavaBaron (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

African Americans

Please see the talk page. Reverting a third time would violate Wikipedia guidelines. Eodcarl (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage it is, Eodcarl. If you´re refering to WP:3RR you´re wrong, i reverted you once. You, however, didn´t follow the essay WP:BRD, and it´s often a good idea to do so. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. 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

Fixed it, thank you ! How does the overall report look ? Sagecandor (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor, it seems reasonable to me. Like in the very recent one (you should probably try to stay off AE for awhile after this one, advice worth every penny you paid for it) you´re generally short and to the point. I think your "TL;DR" summary gives a good explanation why you see this as a continuing problem. Editors with similar interests will run into each other on different topics, but nobody wants the feeling of being stalked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, by "stalking" you I´ve now learned of Rhinogradentia. Charming! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saturday Night Live parodies of Bill Clinton has been accepted

Saturday Night Live parodies of Bill Clinton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Submission for your fictional porn list

Logjammin' from The Big Lebowski ("The plot is ludicrous; you can imagine where it goes from here. -- He fixes the cable?") ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire Todays list-gem: List of planet killers. I´m very pleased, it had Futurama on it. And, of course, List of names for the biblical nameless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
HOLY SHIT PETER STORMARE IN A PORNO!!! The universe just exploded. And there´s a t-shirt. [5] And it´s sourceable. [6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire Well, we´ll see if this sticks: [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, the heading which defines the topic is going to need to be reworded at minimum to stay there or else it sounds like it's a whole other topic, and it invites a list of random fictional porn, which is beyond the scope of that article. It could stay there as long as you limit it to parodic references to the parody-porn genre in mainstream TV and film.
Strictly yes, but since the article's topic is porn based on mainstream film/tv fiction, a subsection on mainstream film/tv fiction based on porn is not totally outlandish. I think all the current examples have pornparodies themselves, which also makes it a closer topic. And, should it swell with lots of good sourced material (needn´t happen, the section should be fairly small per UNDUE), then we have an article (or list, if that´s better). Finding sources for fictional porn is a small enough field as it is, finding sources for "parodic references to the parody-porn genre" will be next to impossible, i think. The Friends-cite doesn´t do that, for example. Though it´s obvious to many people, it´s OR territory. We´ll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems far from certain that what Friends did counts as a parody btw: [8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

German Occupied Territory

I completely agree with you: It´s a fine text, but if you add this to "Background" that section will be very France-heavy. " Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Is it possible, Henia Perlman, to post this at Talk:German-occupied Europe, which is I assume is the related article (as there is no German-occupied territory article) and has been part of an ongoing discussion about putting info about French North Africa / Tunisia there.
That way, anyone following the article talk page can be part of the discussion. Thanks so much.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a talkpage watcher!? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and Carole is right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I concur with that. Irondome (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

re Books on Trump

In case you weren´t aware of this early masterpiece ;-) [9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but do you think that one is "notable" for Wikipedia's WP:GNG ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No, it´s not serious. The series of books had it´s fanbase, was even translated to swedish, but this one is pretty much forgotten. It´s in Donald Trump in popular culture though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh okay haha cute thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Colourful" doesn't necessarily mean orange

Re this: Millions of articles, and you had to link to that one. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, thanks for a good chuckle. I didn´t make that connection, just thought "people will recognize this article". It´s not a bad look, but they need to work on templates at the bottom of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328 You owe me bigtime, casting the deciding vote and all that. Congratulations, and please don´t leave the Teahouse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mediumship and Gustaf Fröding

Re [10]: yeah, we also have a substantial wikipedia article about mediumship. And you can buy medium ships on E-bay![11] Unusual to see a username from Fröding, btw! Bishonen | talk 11:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC).

Mm, de flesta wikipedianer föredrar Geijer.[12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Buckley (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) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I have heeded the word of the robot overlord. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

RS (sax)

Thank you for the invitation. I'm tending to focus on Australian-related music, at the moment, and will be unable to participate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I´ll ping you if I see anything suspicious at NG again... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For patiently helping out new editors. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Barnstorm award. As a new editor, I certainly appreciate your help! Juliet Sabine (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, How do I do an UNDO?

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. On a page I'm working on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liposuction, someone undid several hyperlinks I had added to help clarify some of the dangerous outcomes of liposuction; they used this code ~ WP:OVERLINK to explain their reason for the undo. Although the words are common, with regards to liposuction, they may not be benign. Bruising and bleeding, for example, can be life threatening due to these adipose removal procedures. In any case, I am learning about the over-links. I see on the liposuction page, several places that hyperlinks are used that seem superfluous to me and others I have spoken with about this. One is that the word French has a hyperlink. Another is that the word model also has a hyperlink. I would think it would serve to clean up and clarify a page by removing these tangential hyperlinks. Is this something I would bring up on the Talk page, or is this a minor edit, that I may do myself, with an explanation citing WP:OVERLINK?
Also, I wonder if you might clarify for me this: are three small edits within a twenty-four hour period all that is allowed? Some day I have time to edit, and others I do not. It would be more time efficient to make more than three small edits in a day. Thank you so much, Juliet Sabine (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Juliet Sabine! WP is full of nuggets of wisdom like WP:OVERLINK, and as a new editor, you'll probably encounter even more. Let me give you another: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Do as many small or big improvements to articles as you think is reasonable (only time will give you a feel for what is "reasonable" in different WP-areas), and if they stick, all is well and good. If you're reverted and disagree with that, slow down and talk. Large-ish changes to (for example) a medical topic can be a good idea to discuss beforehand. Being reverted is part of life on WP, even Jytdog gets reverted ;-) It´s important not to WP:EDITWAR, that´s where the "three edits", WP:3RR comes from.
On the specific, go ahead and de-link as you judge is best. I agree on "french". "Model" is IMO more grey-area, in context it´s not useless, but far from essential. I considered changing it to "patient", but "model" hints at why it had an impact. To quote the sitcom Absolute Power: It´s my duty as a reporter to inform the public of this horrible new disease... especially if it´s started to affect celebrities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'm sure I'll ask more as soon as I have time. Juliet Sabine (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have another question about editing. Here is the situation, I'm considering putting the following on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liposuction page. I wanted to make sure that I'm following protocol as I am on a learning curve on Wikipedia. -- "There is a photo in the upper right hand corner of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liposuction page that is captioned, "Suction-assisted lipectomy of bilateral outer thighs." When people search "liposuction" on the internet, this photo shows up. The visual results shown are not typical of a spectrum of long-term results post-liposuction. The photos appear to be promotional and non-objective, put up by Otto Placik, who was banned from editing on Wikipedia. [1] Adipose tissue is an important endocrine organ. Animal studies have repeatedly shown that, among a wide variety of animals, the removal of fat in one depot results in both increased fat volume and number in other depots. It seems as though those who profit from these procedures ignore this data. A University of Colorado, well-respected study - [2]- confirmed this “weight redistribution” phenomena in 100% of the women. People commonly suffer from over-resection and uneven resection due to liposuction, which is documented. I propose we get a variety of photos that show a spectrum of results, including disfiguration and that long-term AT (Adipose Tissue) redistribution, since short-term results do not last. I propose these photos are taken down until this is discussed and resolved. Thank you." Juliet Sabine (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labiaplasty/
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22539589 Hernandez TL, Kittelson JM, Law CK, Ketch LL, Stob NR, Lindstrom RC, Scherzinger A, Stamm ER, Eckel RH. Fat Redistribution Following Suction Lipectomy: Defense of Body Fat and Patterns of Restoration. Obesity. 2011 Jul 1;19(7):1388–95.
Additionally, how do I get my references to show up as hyperlinks? Thanks again. Juliet Sabine (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Goodmorning Juliet Sabine! Looks fine for talkpage to me. That particular image is the WP:LEADIMAGE. Articles don´t have to have one (can´t always), but the general sentiment is that it is nice if they do. You may guess from that link that what is a good/the best leadimage can be difficult to agree on. For example, WP-articles such as african-american used to have a collage of notables, but after long discussions editors decided that screw it, this is a waste of time, fiat MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. The leadimage at Muhammad also took a bit of discussion [13].
These are extreme examples, most often it´s much easier (somebody is WP:BOLD and that´s that, or anything inbetween[14]), but a discussion about what is a "natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see" for Liposuction may take time and patience, and the result may be a disappointing no consensus = no change at this time (or of course, a consensus that the images are good enough/best available). But I say go for it, the WP:COI "angle" deserves to be looked at. If you have any images to suggest as replacement, that could help. If you like, you can put a "I started an image-discussion at Liposuction, I welcome your input." message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as well.
Your dailydot did turn in to hyperlink, but the software automagically puts it at the bottom of the page [Insert nov 22: now moved upward with a clever piece of code by PaleoNeonate]. On a talkpage you can just [15] or interesting article if you like, but we don´t put links like that in the text of an article. More at Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
And thanks for that article, interesting! I´ve put it on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2013 and Talk:Labiaplasty (This article has been mentioned by a media organization). Ah, 2013, the year of Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station#Controversy_over_French-language_version_of_Wikipedia_article... Good times... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
One more thing, BTW, the animal studies. Unless you have a solid source that discuss/connects these animal studies to human liposuction, don´t bother with that part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your help very much. Is it okay if I ask you more questions in the future? If so, should I start a new thread? I just added the link to the study so it shows up in the footnotes too. There are other images on the liposuction page that can be used. Since Otto's photo's have been deemed to be promotional on other pages and he was banned as an editor, would that not be reason to get have this photo removed from the page? Would it be reason to have it removed from the archives? Of the twenty-nine liposuction pages I found from around the world, Otto's photo is used on four of them. Juliet Sabine (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Another question, a few months ago the whole Liposuction Talk page was deleted. Do you know why this action would have been taken? It erased this discussions and objections that were up. Would that page be achieved anywhere? Who makes the decisions to erase the history? Juliet Sabine (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You´re welcome to ask, if I have nothing to say, I´ll say that. WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask, and you´re likely to get more input than just one editors opinion. New thread is good if it´s a new(-ish) topic. Either way works.
WP:COI/WP:PAID/WP:ADVOCACY stuff is a bit complicated. It is, as the article you linked show (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for many more examples) a BIG problem. But it´s not automatically forbidden per se, though there are a bunch of rules and restrictions involved. People like Otto can in theory add "good stuff" to WP, and he probably did to some extent, that´s why he could do it for so long. So, is this image mostly WP:PROMOTIONAL for Otto and others in the profession, or is it more a good WP:LEADIMAGE in an area where "free" images are rare and hard to come by? I have no idea. It can be a baby and bathwater thing. I´ll tell you this though, neither Doc James nor Jytdog are any friends of Otto´s actions. Read their userpages if you haven´t, they´re pretty interesting.
Not deleted I think, archived per Help:Archiving a talk page. I´m guessing Jytdog (see the talkpages "view history" tab) saw the talkpage, thought "This should be archived" and did it. See the "Archives: 1" in the big yellow box on the talkpage? The "1" is a link to the current archive page. That talkpage is now archived automatically, threads without comment for 60 days will be archived. If you want to refer to old discussions again, you can of course do that, "As I noted at Talk:Liposuction/Archive_1#dangers..." or whatever. Some subjects are discussed more than others (Talk:Donald Trump). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I want to put a few phrases in brackets to show that I have new pages planned for each topic. I have seen that those words are then hyperlinked in red. What is the WP code that I write in the description of the changes to explain this action? For example, I plan to make a page for lidocaine toxicity, and another for post surgical weight gain, (that is due to liposuction), as currently there are no references for these terms. Thank you, Juliet Sabine (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. A WP:REDLINK is meant to be read as "somebody should create this artcle, please do that", more or less. There is, as far as I know, no extracode to indicate "I intend to do this soon." In your case, I would read Wikipedia:Your first article, follow the directions to create a draft, and start writing. At some point you might want to ask for input, like "how does this look", Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is a good place for that. You can also look at WP-articles on similar topics and try to "copy their style". Try to find WP:GA and WP:FA, they´re the best to "copy", though those articles are generally quite extensive. Getting your first WP-article accepted is a challenge. A little more on that here:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_624#Article
I note that while lidocaine toxicity doesn´t have article, lidocaine does. Perhaps you should start with writing a section in that article? Again, I know nothing about the subject, and from what I see at google books [16], WP:GNG shouldn´t be a problem for your article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, how do I approach, (on The Talk page, perhaps), an unsourced line that reads like a talking sales points of those who profit from the procedures? The whole line, (under Complications), reads,"Puncture of an internal organ: since the surgeon cannot see the cannula, sometimes it damages an internal organ, such as the intestines during abdominal liposuction. Such damage can be corrected surgically, although in rare cases it can be fatal. An experienced cosmetic surgeon is unlikely to puncture any internal organ." It is not, however, proven that an experienced cosmetic surgeon is unlikely to puncture any internal organ; this line misleads the public to trust a group of surgeons classified together only by sake of their longevity. Liposuction power tools increase risk for organ punctures, as do surgeons who are careless and unskillful, no matter how many years they have been in the field, or what their credentials are. The risky procedures rely on a surgeon using their "blind hand" to guide the cannula -- organ and viscera puncture is a clear and serious complication of this surgery, the quantifier of leading people to believe that some type of certificate protects them is incorrect and seems biased, not neutral. Also, while technically the cannula is the instrument that punctures it is the surgeon who does the puncturing -- it's worng to use the passive voice in this case. Juliet Sabine (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Here´s what I would do: Remove "An experienced cosmetic surgeon is unlikely to puncture any internal organ." with an editsummary like "This is unsourced, but it also seems like WP:OR and sounds like a salespitch making a statement on human health" If someone reverts, try to talk about it, but I don´t think anyone will. And I see that the leadimage has changed. Pinging Juliet Sabine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I see one thing at Liposuction you can do if you like. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article. Basically, nothing in the article should be only in the lead. You could move the bit about Dujarier from the lead to "History", or leave the lead as it is and expand on Dujarier in that section.
Thank you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for your help and the links to pages that will serve my edits. I just made the edits that we spoke of above -- we'll see what happens now. There is much to improve on this page. I'm taking it slowly. And, yes, the leadimage has been changed. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing by alternating our conversation indents back and fourth or not; If I keep indenting further, that allows less and less space on each line for text Juliet Sabine (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You´re welcome, Juliet Sabine. Indenting isn´t that important with just two people, but when multiple indenting becomes annoying you can always OUTDENT. One aspect of using indenting is that experienced wikipedians see it as professional and polite "good manners". Like all "cultures" we have a bunch of unspoken stuff (actually, much is written down somewhere, but where is impossible to know for a new arrival, learning by doing and asking is the way). Minor thing, you never need to "ping" someone on their own usertalkpage, the user get´s a notice just for the comment being made. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I just moved a shorter a portion of text and from the Recovery section to the WP:LEAD section of the Liposuction page. I'd like to make sure the source is cited correctly. I can't see to get the paragraph I want to open up by clicking on edit source. Can you help me? The source is cited once in the Recovery section at the end of this last paragraph: "The suctioned fat cells are permanently gone, however, the study done at University of Colorado Denver entitled, "Following Suction Lipectomy: Defense of Body Fat and Patterns of Restoration," found that fat came back for all participants after it was suctioned out; it took some time, but it all returned despite maintaining the previous diet and exercise regimen. At 1-year out, overall body fat returned to the same level as before treatment. While the fat returned somewhat to the treated area, most of the increased fat occurred in the abdominal area. Visceral fat - the fat surrounding the internal organs - increased, and this condition has been linked to multiple life-shortening diseases such as diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Thank you! Juliet Sabine (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems a little moot now per [17] (but you know where the talkpage is). I think I agree with Jytdog here, the lead already states "Evidence does not support an effect on weight". As a crude rule of thumb, it´s often unnecessary to mention specific sources/studies in the lead. Actually, in a stable, well-developed article cites in lead are not mandatory per WP:LEADCITE, but Liposuction is not that, so don´t start removing them ;-). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, and thanks for asking! I don´t promise to start doing this quickly, muchly, or at all, but it could be interesting. And I do have at least 500 non-deleted mainspace edits. Should I apply per the tutorial-page? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yea go a head and apply for the permissions. No need to start out fast or slow, do as little or as much as you like. Even someone who runs through the new page feed sorting stubs or adding Wikiprojects is very valuable, and these are fairly easy jobs if you install the right scripts (see the Tutorial page)— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. 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)

Thank you

For all the times you did not lose your patience and were kind and tried to help me as a new editor.

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all your help on the Bible and violence article. I greatly appreciate it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
for working with someone so clueless all the way to the end. Thank you. The Teamwork Barnstar

Thank you, Jenhawk! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Pertinent info

I thought it possible you might be interested in knowing about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog_Ban_breaking/request_of_Enforcement_and_further_actions

So when do you think removing those tags will be appropriate--I mean--I'm not too excited or anything--maybe just a little...  :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I often check ANI as a source of WP-entertainment. Generally wouldn´t go there myself unless I received a legal threat or something. I remember once when Jytdog was accused of ethnical insensivity for using the phrase "that´s greek to me", that was fun.
Now, you seem to have this opinion that just because I, voluntarily, in a public forum, say that I will do something, I should actually do it!? Most unreasonable. Anyway, stay tuned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Need help removing and replacing a picture

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I suggest removing the LEAD PHOTO from the Liposuction page that seems like WP:OR and a visual sales pitch as it doesn't show anything about liposuction. I suggest replacing it with the photo in the suture section of that page that shows the cannula inserted to what they say is 80%, which shows more of the process than a surgeon in goggles and scrubs. I don't know how to exchange pictures yet. Is this something you can help me with? Also on the breast reduction page, there are before and after photos that are promotional and misleading. I have taken a snapshot from a video of the procedure in process from that media section of that page and have it ready to replace the LEAD PHOTOS, but I also don't know how to do that. Thank you. Oh, I just this response!

Pictures are normally just [[File:imagename.jpg]] links (that are turned into an inline display by the software), but there's some amount of magic when templates (or the <gallery> tag) are involved. I agree the top one is promotional, the one you suggest is a bit graphic. I'll comment further on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems you got help on the liposuction talkpage, Juliet Sabine. I've never in my wikilife added an image I didn´t find on Wikimedia Commons, so I´m the wrong person to ask about new images. You can start at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Donating_your_photographs and/or Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I do know, however, that WP is in most cases very very unwilling to use images that aren´t "free", that is, actually donated by the copyright owner or in the public domain. If you own the copyright to the video in question, such an image may be used (subject to the usual editorial consensus), otherwise I think wou´re wasting your time in the long run. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
BTW, when you copy power~enwiki's message like this (hyperlinks, date and all), it looks like they themself commented on this talkpage, this can lead to confusion (it confused me, I wanted to use "thank" on the view history-tab, and couldn't find their edit!). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, as always for the lessons that are adding up and helping me to navigate a bit on Wik. So sorry about the confusion with powrer-enwiki's message! It was late and I did it quickly, still very much learning how to nagative here. Juliet Sabine (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree?

Jytdog is removing everything I've written. Do you agree it's bad?Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well Jenhawk777, that was a bit like an angry diety rising from a golden box, wasn´t it? Good job on keeping your cool, I do like it when people stay polite [18].
I don´t really know what to recommend, except time and patient editing/discussion. If you think it´s a good idea, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you could certainly reinstate all or some of the sections removed. I know you've reached out to people and noticeboards for more input on several occasions, but the response has sadly been pretty lukewarm. A regretful fact of life on WP, people will edit what they damn well please when they damn well please (actually, that can be helpful as well). I wish Aleph would participate but I think he sort of burned out on Exodus awhile back. Who knows, maybe later. I think others are watching and maybe some will be spurred into action. You and Jytdog (again, apparently) are currently the ones who cares, for good and bad. I have some interest in the parts I find interesting, but when I find this area to bothersome I'll happily edit Lucifer (TV series) or Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump for a while and maybe come back later.
About the stuff currently under Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Moved_here_for_improvement. I find the "herem" bit rather interesting and on-topic, something like this should have a place in the article since there´s a lot of herem going on in it. My WP-radar asks "Who is Eric Siebert and why is he first in this?". Chamas and Shalom starts with long quotes from something, this is rarely good (and I noticed that "Non-violence and Shalom" as written is just one long quote). I have no knowledge about if the sources used are "to religous" or not. Jytdog may have a point or part of one, but here my ignorance kicks in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Since you questioned those parts, I removed them, and then replaced those sections on the page. Definitions should be there and should represent the source material on them. A definition will be a definition will be a definition no matter the source but I told him I will change to his dictionary if he prefers. It won't matter I'm sure. If he reverts them again after my trying to cooperate, I will attempt posting an Rfc, but it will only help if third parties actually show up. I don't know how long I can endure the bullying no matter how much I care, but I will try. An angry god indeed...  :-) One person showed up and asked 'Jytdog why are you so angry?' and after his response I doubt they will return. I know how they feel. And that's how he always gets his way. My sense of responsibility toward that is limited though.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss article content at the article. Sidebars are not productive. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, if we wish to discuss article-content on my talkpage we will do so. If there is reason, it can be brought to the attention of the relevant talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course people can use user talk pages all kinds of ways. Sidebars held there about article content are generally not productive as they lead to false sense of consensus, formation of GANGs, and otherizing, especially when "social media" chatting gets mixed in. Further, things that get worked out there are not part of the article talk page history, making it hard to figure out where consensus was developed for people who come to the article later. But sure people are free to do that. I just asked that you discuss content at the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I don´t think you have to worry about false sense of consensus in this particular case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Arne & Carlos

Hey Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Hate to seem persistent or annoying but just wanted to follow up regarding the discussion on Arne & Carlos' talk page. Once again, the article was originally a stub which I was tasked to update and now that the deletion review is over, I was hoping some of the changes on this draft could be implemented, or at the very least, have the article updated so it is no longer classified a stub. Please let me know if I provide you with anything to make this easier but your help would be much appreciated. Any advice would also be very helpful. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello JacobMW, there´s no harm in asking. I understand your position, but this is not my normal area of interest I won´t promise to do anything right now. They seem like nice guys though, for some reason the image makes me think of Anders Jacobsson and Sören Olsson. One thing I remember from the deletion-discussion (they survived that, that´s something), was that they´re supposedly on "permanent display" at National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design. If you can find a good source for that (not their webpage), I think it´s worth adding. If you haven´t, consider also asking for help at the talkpage of the norwegian WP-article (check the article-history too, BTW, perhaps there´s active editors to ask), and/or some fitting noticeboard there, perhaps Torget. Small thing, you don´t need to ping an editor on their own talkpage. Good luck och God Jul! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being so kind and helpful! Appreciated. JacobMW (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Rfc

Will you vote? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Oh and--I did what you suggested. I posted it around. Thanx for the idea.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bible and violence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamar and Gath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Again? Fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you *Treker, God Jul och Gott Nytt År to you too! No trouble from the DI-thugs I hope? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Nä, allt är bra. :) Tack.★Trekker (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Men då så. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

   Compliments of the season
Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment 
 Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


Thanks, Gareth! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

request review

If you get a chance--I made those changes, and now also have a decent Hebrew source--can you take a look? Just skim!! [[19]] Then I can get moving on the new references. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It´s at Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Survey. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, PaleoNeonate, same to you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

attempt at closure

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hi! I am responding to the note you put on the Bible and violence here instead of there because I am confused! You are asking for agreement that I should put that stuff back--but I already did! Was I supposed to do this first? Did I screw up? Should I quick go take it back out?!? I put out --like, a notice there, saying I was going to put it back based on the comments--that I had made all the changes everyone suggested and unless someone objected I was going to reinsert. I waited for a week or so, no one objected, so I did! It's there under Terms. Have you not looked at the article itself in awhile? Or am I misunderstanding? Is this about the headings I removed? I did that for Jytdog it was one of the things he criticized. I'm a little at sea here--help!Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I swear I´m not drunk, but somehow I missed that it was back in the article. Embarrassed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hah! :-) Okay quick--go erase that so no one else will know! It comforts me to know someone as competent as you can make mistakes like I do! So thank you for that--I'm sure you did it on purpose just to boost my confidence here because you are so kind--right? :-) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Erased it, but they will know since I pinged them :P But this explains why I couldn´t find the text in your sandbox any longer. That should have been a clue. Oh well, live and learn. Even the Sun has spots. And if your confidence rose as much as mine sank, you´re on amphetamines right now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
So you didn't read it for awhile--all that shows is you're not as OCD as I am. That's a virtue. To err is human--let yourself be human every now and then--otherwise I will start believing you are a robot--and then I'll know I'm inferior.  :-) Hey do me a favor and send Alephb that video of Jean Luc and singing "make it so" will you? I used it on the talk page with him and he needs to hear it. He so deserved it too! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Besides--how many mistakes of mine have you caught by now? You don't bust a gut--you just tell me to fix it. Treat yourself as well as you treat others--please. You deserve that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, there´s a first. Coffee, which edit/edits of mine prompted you to leave this alert? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, guessing from your recent edithistory, something of a carpet-bombing kind of thing? Or more directed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You'll notice in the message this doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, it is only because you have edited in the topic area and need to be aware of these. (But, yes... a carpet-bombing strategy of sorts to make sure no one is left out... I have to do this every once in a while.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Good enough. I did notice that, I was aware of the DS and have seen these messages before (but not on my talkpage!!!). However, since I edit in the area from time to time, it still reads like I did something now that made you feel you had to warn me. Wikipedians can be subtle and quick to anger (you probably know that). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång/Archive_1&oldid=1160131847"