User talk:Martinkopperudandersen

Welcome Martinkopperudandersen!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,314,950 users!

Hello, Martinkopperudandersen. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm This lousy T-shirt, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't vandalize

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Sincerely, — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

March 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Forfall has been reverted.
Your edit here to Forfall was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/forfall2012) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Forfall

Hello, Martinkopperudandersen. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Forfall, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Wgolf (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Forfall, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Forfall was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gH7aMh6AvI) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Height of Elizabeth Debicki

Please stop inserting poorly sourced material about her height at the article on Elizabeth Debicki. The page you quote, celebheights.com, is not a reliable source (it refers to Debicki as "he") and is quite equivocal about her height – it gives 183 cm, 6 ft 1 1/2 in, and 6 ft 2 in. The Independent is a much better source. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A minor typo is not what I call a factor for judging a source. The height claimed in The Independent article doesn't even have a source. Describeing someone's height is not the same as a factual video which she is saying her height on camera.

(Please indent your messages & sign them; see Help:Talk.) With or without the typo, the source you provided, Rob Paul's website celebheights.com, is a not a reputable and reliable source. Further, it gives 3 different numbers. Where is the video you mention? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a link at the page. But now the link is not working.

Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States

Please stop changing the height for Donald Trump to 6' 1/2". See the Talk page discussion, which established consensus on this matter. http://www.celebheights.com is not a reliable source and the article currently cites a reliable source to establish that his height is 6' 2". If you continue to edit against consensus and again replace a reliable source with an unreliable one, it will be regarded as disruptive editing. General Ization ^Talk 16:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see photos between Trump and Obama they appear as the same height. Obama is 6 feet 1 inches and Trump is at best the same height and maybe a little less considering his hair volume. Everyone can see that he is not at his peak height enymore. 6 feet 1/2 inches is a more correct height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinkopperudandersen (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your estimations and conjecture based on photographs are not a reliable source. Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unless and until someone actually measures Trump's current height and the results are published by a reliable source, we must go with the height reported on his driver's license and other documents cited in reliable sources. General Ization ^Talk 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please always sign your comments on any Talk page, including this one, by typing four tildes (~~~~} after them. General Ization ^Talk 17:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A driver licence from way back is not a valid source for the current height. And other sources are basing the facts on his peak height. Trump has even claimed 6 feet 3 inches, so his word is not reliable. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-driving-licence-height-claims-president-elect-six-foot-two-three-a7492926.html. Photographs with obama who was verified as 6 feet 1 inches tall are a pretty reliable source. Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not open to debate. Your impression or perception from observing a photograph is not a reliable source, and reliable sources are required here. Please read the policies I have cited above. The warning stands. General Ization ^Talk 20:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Site Celebheights.com bases the height on many sources and often there are pictures to support different claims and I think it is a good source to estimate Donald Trumps current height. If a well known newspaper had written that Obama was 6 feet 2 inches, would that be considered a good source? I don't think so. Sometimes pictures are a more reliable source than just a statement that is probably pulled from earlier sources like driver licence and earlier statement. This is not enough for a current height estimate. Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDHT. General Ization ^Talk 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like theres two sides of the coin Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only one of them is consistent with Wikipedia policy. You are free to disagree with those policies, but not to violate them. General Ization ^Talk 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only stating a fact that Donald Trump is not 6 feet 2 Inches tall anymore. Previousely his height on this wikiepdia-page was 6 feet 3 inches tall and that was not true. So I am not violating anything. I am only trying to prove his current height. Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Martinkopperudandersen reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to respond to the report at the noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi. You've been blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring while failing to engage at the article talk page. There's also the issue of relying on an unreliable source. Thanks. El_C 07:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

January 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cristiano Ronaldo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an even more reliable source. Where they are measuring him https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PKDxqsUam3o&t=26s&feature=youtu.be Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has never been listed as 1.87cm before the Real Madrid listing came out, which seems like a typo. I can list more 1.85cm sources than 1.87cm ones. Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Flooded w/them 100s 08:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint has been closed with a warning to you. You may be blocked if you revert again at Cristiano Ronaldo unless you have received a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Hello Martinkopperudandersen. You continued the war by making two more reverts at Cristiano Ronaldo on 31 January, contrary to the above warning. There is no sign that anyone on the talk page supports your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinkopperudandersen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here -I think this is totally unfair to block me like this. I have managed to find a reliable source of Ronaldo´s height. The link is to a documentary where they use a highly advanced 3d body scanner that gives an excact measurement of his height as 185,1cm. The scanning begins at 10:20 in the video. It seems that the user that blocked med does´t want to admit that I have found a source that we actually see him get measured unlike the Real Madrid listing which seems off, since he has never been listed at 187cm before. Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for violating WP:RS, you are blocked for violating WP:EW. In order to be unblocked, you need to demonstrate you did not engage in an edit war or that you achieved consensus for your change, on the article's talk page. Yamla (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiril Eckhoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canmore (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) 09:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]