User talk:Toresbe

If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible.
And thanks for writing!

Another Norwegian enters the fray?

Hi there, are you by any chance a Norwegian? Based on my taking a peek at your list of contributions, I took the chance of including you in our category. Feel free to revert that action if I'm wrong, of course. Anyway: welcome! --Wernher 12:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Time-sharing/Temp

Turned out that Time-sharing wasn't a copyvio. So if you want, you can nominate Time-sharing/Temp for deletion...or if you had any changes, please merge them back. --Geoffrey 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

PDP-11

I responded on my talk page. Short answer: I think your edit was useful, even if it isn't cited. I don't think that "cn" is a black mark, just a note for the future. -- Gnetwerker 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Self-link in recursion

Hi Toresbe. I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert_C._Prim

Hej, Toresbe!

Jag sökte efter matematikern och datavetenskaparen Robert_C._Prim, men kom bara ihåg efternamnet, och vidarekopplades till sidan Geitost...

Jag gör om sidan Prim till en förgreningssida, och hoppas att du inte misstycker.

Med vänlig hälsning,--JoergenB 14:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha - hei. Takk for at du sier ifra -- Jeg tror det nok er en ide, ja. :) toresbe 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Du kjenner SINTRAN folk?

Du sa du kjente en SINTRAN utvikler. Kan jeg spørre hvem det er? Jeg har mistet kontakten med de fleste ND folkene nå så hadde vært fint om du kunne hilse fra meg til ham dersom jeg kjenner fyren og det gjør jeg sannsynligvis siden jeg selv jobbet med SINTRAN fra ca. 1983 til rundt 1987 eller deromkring.

salte 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ja, han heter Jonny Oddene, og driver Sintran Data, og supporterer flere kjørende maskiner. Jeg tror han var mer på support-siden, men det er jeg ikke helt sikker på. Han begynte i 1986. :)

Kjenner også et par andre folk som har vært igjennom Norsk Data nå, men det er kanskje mest på hardwaresiden (jeg har møtt de i sammenheng med NORD-10-prosjektet) - Ola Sveen, Bård Sørbye, og har snakket en del med Kåre Trøim. toresbe 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ola Sveen er ett navn jeg husker. Jonny husker jeg ikke. Jeg er ganske sikker på at han ikke drev med utvikling - for da hadde navnet plinget en bjelle. Navn jeg husker fra ND tiden? Hmm.. Jo, første sjefen min var Hans Karsten Dahl, og jeg husker jo Knut Nordby. Og hva var navnet på han som utviklet Planc igjen? Jeg er sikker på at jeg kommer til å gjenkjenne navnet når noen sier det men akkurat nå står det stille. Og så var det en engelsk fyr som drev med filsystemet, hva var det han hette nå igjen? Hmm...navnene er stort sett borte for meg nå... Jeg har aldri vært flink på navn og fjes og sånt :) I kompilator gruppa var det to fyrer som jeg nå ikke husker navnet på - dang, jeg skulle ønske jeg kunne huske slikt bedre :) Så var det to jenter som jobbet med SIBAS, en tror jeg het Heidi Larsen, den andre husker jeg ikke navnet på. Jeg husker at de var begge ganske interessert i håndball. Det er rart hva man husker og hva man glemmer over tid salte 09:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Vi har egen Facebook gruppe. Det var Jeremy Salter som ledet programvaren som ble NOTIS. Dere kjenner dette som "XML" som brukes på nettet (her) i doumenter. NOTIS-WP brukte SGML, og SGML2 og XML (Torhild Drøsdal or Tor Oøav Steine). NOTIS-DS var det første store dokumenthåndteringsystem (Jeremy Salter or Inger Breivang), ID og DS var intranet eller "COSMOS" - det første Internet. NOTIS-MAIL var helt vanlig email. Vi hadde email på Skullerud som delt på å være "nodemaaskin" for Europa - sammen med FFI. Jeg og JS satt i British Computing Society, End User Subgroup, og fikk (sammen med Roger Tagg) de første notatene fra CERN. Der brukte de JS sitt "Markup" - SGML på våre maskiner og laget linker mellom dokumenter som kunne hente inn media. Det var her det ble klekket ut, men SINTRAN hadde data-kommunikasjon - HDLC (IBM SNA) og X.25/X.21/X.400 (Karel Dijkman, Helge Magnus). Martin Standley hetre han som frontet TCP/IP mens je drev med standarder of Unix og C og de store systemene (Ariane oppskytning, F16, Statoil/GECO).Vi ble anklaget for å være "proprietære" og nå bruker alle det vi laget. SIBAS er gunnleggende for dette (Jean F. Hoffmann) fordi her kunne du lagre ting,og henvise mellom data - lage pekere mellom objekter. SIBAS hadde "BLOB" som er det samme "URL". For meg var det helt banalt og håndtere URL og legge dette inn i XML. Oracle er startet opp av oss, og vår implentasjon av Oracle på ND500 var verdens raskete mer god margin. Fordi vårt utstyr var laget slik at tingene gikk for seg samtidig for full fart. Men Oracle satte prisen etter ytelse og da ble vår også verdens dyreste. Rolf Skår forsøkte å endre på det i mange møter. Microsoft har kopiert NOTIS-QL og kalt det "Access" i MS Office. Det er Ole Jørgen Hansen som laget dette, mens jeg laget makemismene som tillater "navigering". Det er mye mer som Jeremy Salter var innlandet i. Han startet med Kåre Fløysand i R-Dir en rekke selskaper, bl.a. de første "søkemotorene" - "Kvasir" (Yahoo) og de første editorene for SGML og XML som ble Opera (Chrome). Trygve Matre hette han som laget SINTRAN og ledet utviklingen. Arne Lindheim laget PLANC og "LED" - den første visuelle editoren i verden hvor du kunne se hvor du var i koden: DEC brukte "SOS", IMB hullkort, Unix "Vi" som fortsatt brukes på Linux/Unix. Men der redigerer du en og en linje. LED hadde skjermen og posisjon på skjermen - og på SINTRAN linket de utføringen av koden til hvor du er i koden så du kan sjekke hva som blir gjordt. På ND500 var det esktremt fordi har kjører tingene i "multicore". Vi hadde bedre verktøy enn "de andre", og så var miljøet ekstremt godt, vi hjalp hverandre: Det var Arne Lindheims gruppe som kjøpte og installerte espresso-maskin utenfor kontoret mitt mens jeg reiste rundt. De andre mente vi "sloss" - men vi ble og var gode venner, og vi var flinke til å hjelpe hverandre. Men vi brydde oss ikke så mye om hvordan det gikk, passet ikke på hverandre men gikk ut fra at de andre allw gjorde det så godt de kunne. Stort sett så fikk vi det til. SINTRAN er som å kjøre WINDOWS og så skrive om og kjøre Unix i multicore delen. Du hadde en ND100 som passet på alt og delte minnet med multi-chore delen. Den sørget for at kjernen gikk hele tiden, skjermene og diskene og Ethernet - PIOC. Det gikk rasende fort. På FFI laget de enda råere multiprosessorer, men vi var raske nok til å mate dem. KHF 17:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC) -KHF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khflottorp (talk • contribs)

The LSI-11 and "innovation"

I'm not going to revert you, but the "innovation" of the LSI-11 was to bury the console interface routine ("Console ODT -- Octal Debugging Technique") right into the machine microcode on the processor chip set. The Norsk Data machine you cited appears to have put all that stuff into ordinary program-space ROMs.

Atlant 12:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it is in microcode. There was no physical-space ROM on the NORD series for this purpose, and in fact you could enter the OPCOM (microcode prompt) while the machine was running, to deposit/examine, monitor registers as the programs were running, etc. This was just an example... the PDP-11 was not at all the first to do this. May I ask how you came to believe that it was in physical memory, though? Some article I need to rephrase?

Cheers, toresbe 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

May I ask how you came to believe that it was in physical memory, though? Some article I need to rephrase?

My (bad) assumption based on the unqualified statement that this stuff was in the machine's "ROM". Just make it read "microstore ROM" or "microprogram ROM" and silly people like me won't jump to the wrong conclusion ;-).

Atlant 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hello, your report was removed earlier because there isn't enough vandalism from that address at this time. Since IP addresses can change between users, we don't block them unless there is a sudden stream of vandalism all at once. Five edits all spaced out isn't enough to justify a block. In general, users and IP addresses should only be reported to AIV when they have vandalized after a recent final (level 4) warning. Thanks for your help, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why I made a point to come by. Sorry about that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Viqueens

A tag has been placed on Viqueens requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Skogtur

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Skogtur, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBisanz ^talk 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kai Paulsen

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Kai Paulsen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrea Rivera

The article Andrea Rivera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Event posing as a bio. Coatrack?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

2011-08 Quisling

Hello,

Hey :)

1. You wrote in 445211488 that « The [Norvegian] Progress Party refers to Labour as "backstabbers" (in formulations ominously close to Dolchstoss), "traitors" and "cultural quislings". » Do you have some source of/about that?

   this is one

2. In my country, some guy said that youth in the Labour Party summer camp at Utøya were teach that Gaza is worse that the Warsaw Ghetto during WW2. I this right?

   No, of course it isn't.

3. For your information: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks! toresbe (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

frp

hei, frp-siden trenger en grundig omskrivning. siden er, som du tidligere har bemerket, blottet for kritikk og oppfyller derfor ikke WP:NPOV. det som trengs er troverdige sekundære kilder (WP:SECONDARY) som drøfter frp. kjenner du til noen slike?-- mustihussain (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hei. Helt enig. Jeg har ikke energi og overskudd til å gjøre noe slikt akkurat nå, men håper likevel det blir gjort :) -- toresbe (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

skjønner, men kjenner du til litteratur som drøfter frp? jeg kan gjerne gjøre endringene.-- mustihussain (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

hei, igjen. hva er mailadressen din?-- mustihussain (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ND-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ND-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

MS Thorbjørn

Hei. Tok vekk endringene dine i artikkelen om MS Thorbjørn, igjen. Det er ikke for å være vanskelig, men jeg vil at artikkelen skal være objektiv og kun inneholde fakta. Hvor har du f.eks. opplysningene om at de på båten var "mostly people who were located in the administrative building near the dock" fra?

Jeg er klar over at MS Thorbjørns rolle er et ømtårlig tema. Bare husk at det er det også for de som risikerte livet for å redde dere der ute. Det inkluderer de frivillige som for lengst burde ha fått medalje for edel dåd og det inkluderer de første tjenestemennene som måtte ta seg i land med åpne småbåter. De hadde heller ikke full oversikt over situasjonen og de ventet faktisk å bli skutt etter av 3-5 terrorister med automatvåpen.

Det er ikke rederlig å kritisere politiet for å bruke for lang tid, samtidig som man unnlater å nevne MS Thorbjørn. Hadde MS Thorbjørn vært tilgjengelig for politiet, ville de to første tjenestemennene som ankom Utøykaia ca. 17:50, kunne tatt seg relativt trygt over til Utøya. I beste fall kunne ABB da vært pågrepet allerede når han selv ringte for å overgi seg ca. kl 18:00.

Alternativt kunne de ventet noen minutter på Beredskapstroppen som med sine pansrede kjøretøy kunne kjørt rett ombord i MS Thorbjørn. De ville da vært godt beskyttet bak den solide baugporten og vært fremme ca. 16 minutter tidligere. Det er fakta som ikke kan utelates om man ønsker å gjøre en objektiv og rederlig evaluering.

Husk at det finnes en diskusjonsside til artikkelen. Benytt denne om du mener artikkelen ikke er objektiv slik den er nå, og sørg for å sjekke faktaene dine om du gjør endringer. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for writing, although I do believe this discussion does belong in the article discussion page. I'll reply in English, and also copy this discussion there. I'd appreciate it if we could also continue it there.

The source for the information is based on the fact that the administrative building is the only building next to the dock and as the article states, six of the nine people aboard the ship were indeed leaders. They worked in the administrative building. Other sources corroborate this.

If this is the specific aspect of the edit with which you have an issue, then I suggest you in the future revert only that part, rather than the entire edit.

Further speculation about the actions of either the police or the ferry at a point where there are very few facts known to the public isn't really very constructive. Hindsight is cheap. Besides, any discussion of this would also necessarily include political considerations. I can't contribute with what would be called OR, of course. What you consider objective truths are nothing but your personal speculations. I highly doubt you have a grasp of the specifics of what happened, the terrain of the island, and I doubt you have a sufficient command of combat strategy to make enlightened comments that can be accepted by anyone as "objective fact" as you claim.

I believe that the text is NPOV - or at least, it adds no NPOV questions to the original paragraph. It's simply an improvement in quality. And I would very much appreciate it if you refrained in the future from using the fact that I was there during the event to discredit my edits, without pointing out specific flaws in my edit style. toresbe (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Vi kan godt ta diskusjonen på diskusjonssiden. De ni ombord har alle vært omtalt i media, og det har også fremgått hvor de befant seg da skytingen startet. Tror det meste står i referansene til den norske wiki-artikkelen om MS Thorbjørn. Noe står også i boken om terrorangrepet som kom ut nylig. Men det får bli senere. Nå er det straks juleferie og jeg ønsker deg en riktig god jul. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Eskil Pedersen

Hello Toresbe. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eskil Pedersen, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning. I would, however, claim that I have indeed excersized caution. In those of my edits that can be seen as politically charged, I believe I have taken care in detailing my reasons for doing so (in the examples you reverted, the cite did not contain the quote or anything near it, and phrases such as "refused to apologize" for filing a police report, along with COATRACKing in criticism from political opponents which to my current judgement cannot possibly be considered NPOV) so as not to appear to be whitewashing.

I have indeed found myself in the midst of these events, through no choice of my own. However, it is a lamentable reality that there is a dearth of Norwegian editors who have an interest in politics. I have always sought to improve Wikipedia articles that touch on things I have interest in and knowledge about, and although I am not a frequent editor, I do believe my edit history shows a steady flow of constructive edits on a varied set of topics. Since I acknowledge (and disclose!) my personal bias, I do my very best to stick to uncontroversial edits, maintain a neutral tone and would greatly appreciate constructive criticism where others might feel I fail to accomplish this.

My changes relative to User:Roghue have incidentally all been in accordance with guidelines set out quite explicitly in WP:BLP.

Although I do not believe this to have occured yet, I have become somewhat wary of this after a less than pleasant experience on the Norwegian Wikipedia (a wiki with no guidelines on COI, unfortunately) where edits were constantly reverted and I was proposed for blocking over indisputably uncontroversial edits to formatting, style and citing: I would also remind you of this quote from WP:COI: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."

Regards, toresbe (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Refused to apologize" is sourced, if you would want to rephrase it, please do - but to remove I can't see what arguments you have for removing it except that Eskil Pedersen is a fellow member of AUF and you would like to remove critisism against him..

The words "has refused to apologise" are obviously not NPOV as they imply that his actions merit an apology. Listing the opposition reaction to every aspect of his actions is IMO undue weight. Of course a politician's actions and statements attract criticism and disagreement from opponents, most of all when those opponents are quite directly attacked.

On the other hand, it's important to revert edits by Norwegian editors who have an interest in politics (political enemies aso), but Wikipedia is NOT censored, and what has happen has happen. Eskil Pedersen DID run away in MS Thorbjørn, that is well source and should not be removed from his article (as did is what most Norwegian remember him for) Mentoz86 (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Equally un-NPOV are the words "run away", when used in this context. He evacuated the island, as did everyone. What is not sourced, however, is the claim that he made or participated in making that decision. The claim that the escape took place "As soon as the perpetrator disembarked on the island and started his rampage" is incorrect and if it wasn't, I would struggle seeing the relevance except if used to imply cowardice. (Who hangs idly around in a situation like that?)

The notices about a fear of a coup d'etat are not IMO notable in and of themselves, are mistranslated to the point where they mean something else, and they are included on the page in a way that seems to be implying poor judgement, as these circumstances have (quite incomprehensibly, to my mind) been used to claim poor judgement previously.

It is frequently used in a context to heavily imply that his actions were somehow wrong. Especially silly is the term "media blackout", which implies a conspiracy to censor. Major newspapers have publically stated their rationale for not giving credence or time to allegations of misconduct during the massacre. toresbe (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If "has refused to apologise" is the wrong translation of "AUF-leder nekter å si unnskyld til Tybring Gjedde" please do something about it, instead of just removing all content that might cast bad light on Eskil Pedersen. "Run away" is my wording, not the words I would use on the article. He evacuated the islands, offcourse, but he did it with the boat that the police was planning on using when they arrived - which makes this notable. The notices about a fear of coup d'etat might not be notable, but atleast that's his explanation of why they did as they did and should be mentioned - shouldn't it? I changed "certain" to "thought", if you have any other suggestions to improvements please improve the article instead of reverting my edits. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please hold further discussions that are not directly related to COI allegations on the article talk page. toresbe (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Toresbe it has come to my attention that you are an active member and politician of Eskil Pedersens own organisation, and thus Eskil Pedersen is your boss. This creates a huge COI. In theory it would not present as a big problem, however considering your intolerance for anything that might have negative implications on his image it is difficult to ignore.

Eskil Pedersen is a human being like you and me, he is not flawless nor god-like. He is however a public politician and as every one of his colleagues across the political spectrum he needs to be held accountable for his actions be they good or bad. I would strongly advise you to instead of just summarily deleting everything you disagree with, try to engage in dialogue and make suggestions on the talk page, bearing in mind your self-stated bias.

Lets be adults about this

Roghue 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

First, let me be clear about one thing: You have done an excellent job removing unsourced rumours and other crap from Eskil Pedersen's article. But when you start to remove cited "facts", I feel that you are crossing the line regarding COI. You can read my post at Talk:Eskil Pedersen too see what I mean. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

These are not cited facts. They are claims with citations next to them, and the citations don't back up the claims - certainly not what the claims imply. Again, I do not accept that I have a COI just because I disagree with others on this, and again, using unsubstantiated COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is not allowed. Thanks, toresbe (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And I quote the following from Talk:Progress Party's Youth: I have no interest in making FpU look good; someone else with such inclinations can take care of that. If you still are thinking in the same way; you are interested in making AUF and Pedersen look good. That looks like an COI to me, (given your relation to AUF) especially when you simply remove well-sourced materials, which might put Pedersen in "bad light", instead of discussion the matter. But I must say: your recent contributions to the article about Eskil Pedersen are positive contributions, I hope you and Roghue can agree on what should be written, I'll keep an eye on the article and will jump back into the discussion if I notice that the article again becomes too "one-sided" (damn, what's up with my directly translated english words :P). Mentoz86 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in keeping the quality of AUF and related articles high, I am not interested in keeping the quality of FpU and related articles high. Others feel another way, and that's how Wikipedia works. If you think this constitutes a conflict of interest, then it's another sign to confirm that you have absolutely no idea what a COI is. Please get a clue about that before you persist in attacking me personally. Also, attaching sources to material does not automatically make it fit for inclusion; it's simply one of many qualities of text. I could put a cake recipe in the article and source it; of course people would be right in removing it. toresbe (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If I have attacked you personal, I'm sorry about that, that was not my intention. Since you previously have stated that you have been vary with your edits according to WP:COI, I assume that you feel that you have a slight COI but haven't violated that policy, which I can agree with. And I must again say sorry if you feel that I have accused you for COI just to get the "upper hand in a content dispute", I simply put the COI-template on your talkpage because I did not know if you were aware of this policy. I've used the last couple of days to read me up on the policies that you have mentioned, instead of engaging in the edit war. As you have said there might be some Coatracking and undue weight in this article, but when you have removed well-source criticism of Pedersen I have reverted it as I feel that this violates COI. Yes, you might have had the right to remove this per WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP and I will consult with WikiProject Norway on what should be done with this article. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hello Toresbe. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Workers' Youth League (Norway), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. __meco (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Please read the above CoI claim. toresbe (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I by that statement to understand that you do not see that you have a conflict of interest when editing the AUF article, since you refer to it as a "claim"? I did not read the previous section before posting this warning message because I posted it in response to an edit you had just made, and realizing that you are a long-standing contributor I reckoned your status vis-á-vis this organization is a fairly recent one, or you needed a reminder to be more cautious about your edits to the article on the organization of which you are also a local chapter leader. The edit in question was in my opinion one such from which you ought to have recused yourself, instead making a request on the article's discussion page about what changes you wanted to have done. I do hope you realize that for several reasons your direct involvement in the editing of this article, with your current level of association to the subject, should be limited to edits which could not be perceived as controversial. The one you did that prompted me to post the COI notice did clearly not fall into that category. Unless you want this to become a lingering issue with editors getting in each others' face you should take this inquiry very serious. __meco (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hi Toresbe. There is a request on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to discuss whether you have a conflict of interest with the Workers' Youth League (Norway) topic. It would be helpful to have your input on this at the discussion (here).[9] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What is history of the organization, and what info belong to some other category in this article

In this edit [10] you mention Gro Harlem Brundtland as deputy leader of her local chapter. But you don't mention who was the leader of the local chapter.

If you can not do a better job of showing the relevant history of the organization, then please don't you try to merge sections. --No parking here (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write that, I just moved some text around. toresbe (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kai Paulsen

Hi there. While going through Norwegian journalist stubs, I found the article about Kai Paulsen, which is unsourced and gives no real claim for notability. User:Geschichte PRODed the article four years ago, so the next step is AfD, but I thought it was better to give you a chance to add some reliable sources to back up your claim that he "was a very well-known journalist, editor, and collector" instead of nominating it for deletion. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PED (editor)

The article PED (editor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources since 2009, no evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Keφr 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of PED (editor) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Keφr 07:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Memory-mapped file

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Memory-mapped file. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Memory-mapped file. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Memory-mapped file – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Crow^Caw 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gah, ignore that! I meant to tag a new page that duplicated THIS article, but tagged the wrong one! Crow^Caw 16:50, 22 December 2014 (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) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Toresbe. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Toresbe. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Toresbe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of LED (editor) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Adam9007 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)