User talk:Arnejohs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 21:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quisling and m(aj/in)or edits

Hi, I was just about to welcome you, but somebody else did it while I was editing my message!

Specifically, however, I noticed you removed Vidkun Quisling from the List of Prime Ministers of Norway. I don't know much about this, but I think it might be worth leaving in a link of some kind anyway - see the article's discussion page for more on that.

Perhaps more importantly, you marked that edit as "minor" - since it makes a substantial difference to the article's content, this might not be a good idea. There's no very solid rule, but generally, minor is used for fixes to things like grammar, spelling, or formatting, rather than content. Otherwise, people might overlook changes that they disagree with and have no chance to discuss them.

Other than that, I hope you enjoy your time as a wikipedian (but not too much...) - IMSoP 21:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians from Norway

Hi there, welcome; on a hunch based on your contributions, I took the liberty of adding you to the list of Wikipedians from Norway -- hope it's correct and OK :-). --Wernher 01:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nerstrand, Minnesota

Hi, and welcome to the Wikipedia! I noticed your change to Nerstrand, Minnesota. I thought it was great that you noted the talk page in your edit summary. Please see my reply to your message there. Thanks, and enjoy your day! Cribcage 15:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Cribcage. In fact I found your comment at Talk:Nerstrand, Minnesota before I saw your message here. You will find an answer from me at the same place. I take your point. Arnejohs 16:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Arne, I hope you don't think I am disagreeing with you in what I wrote on the talk page for the race article. I get battered down every time that I suggest that people think a little about why race is conceptualized as it is. The attitude seems always to be that we can only dumbly report what the "experts" have to say. Since they all disagree that is never going to make for a coherent treatment. I like what is in the Encyclopedia entry you copied over. I just don't think that certain people will let us do it. (I am willing to try, however.) P0M 06:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Patrick, I appreciate your consistent work on improving the 'Race' article. In the long run it is the many people having the same attitude that will make Wikipedia being a credible encyclopaedia covering the common understanding even in disputed areas. But there will always be different views and even different dominating view in different regions (e.g. race seems to have a different meaning in the US of America than in Europe). If Wikipedia aims to be an authoritative encyclopaedia it therefore has to make some distinctions between dominating views and more marginal ones. Since the marginal often tends to be more active and enthusiastic (maybe particularly on the web?), the may be given too much space. --- Arnejohs 08:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 03:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Arnejohs, The same goes for Image:Cod catch 1950 2002.png. Where did you get it? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 04:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Harp seal vandalism

Please do not delete people's work just because you don't like it. NPOV doesn't mean delete what you don't like, it means maintain a neutral point of view. Stating facts is not a point of view. Generic Player 20:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not accept the term vandalism in this case and I would like you to investigate further the POV and NPOV policy of wikipedia. Finally: I do not think it is a great idea to reintroduce the paragraph like you did. Therefore I have replaced it by a more informative one. --- Arnejohs 14:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See, the paragraph you deleted was not someone's opinion, it was facts. It stated the date we started the hunt this year, the fact that many people are calling for boycots, how long the hunt is going to last, and how many seals we are going to kill. That's not a point of view, its simple, accurate facts. Deleting those facts because you don't like them is vandalism. You need to investigate the NPOV policy, it is quite clear about not deleting people's work simply because you don't like it. I don't have time to read your new additions yet, so I can't comment about that. Generic Player 03:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph was:
On March 29, 2005 Canada officially began its annual seal hunt amid calls for boycott of Canadian seafood products by opposition groups. Authorities have set at maximum quota of 319,500 harp seals to be shot or clubbed to death for their fur over the next month. About 95 per cent of these will be less than three months old.
  1. Canada did not start seal hunting in 2005, it started much earlier.
  2. The maximum quota is not given annually, the number reflects what is left of the three year quota. 283,497 harp seals were harvested during the 2003 season and 365,971 seals were taken in 2004.
  3. Seals are not only hunted for their fur, several other products come from the sealing.
  4. I find no documentation of the assertion that 95% is less than three months old.
Based on this I still find your use of the term vandalism provocative. To me the paragraph clearly represents a POV. --- Arnejohs 07:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this is partly a language issue. We did begin our annual hunt on march 29, 2005. Annual means it occurs every year, this is simply stating what date it started this year. And 319,500 is this years quota. If you wanted to make the article more informative, you would add the figures of the previous years, not simply delete everything. And there was a link provided regarding the fact that almost all the seals killed are less than 3 months old. The hunt is for young pups, older seals are able to escape, its the pups born this year that are hunted, this is not a POV at all. Please actually read the NPOV policy, its quite clear, you are not supposed to delete things you don't like, if you feel something is only portraying one side of a story, you are supposed to try to clarify that its only one side, and show the other side, not delete everything. Deleting things you don't like is vandalism, wether you want to admit it or not. Generic Player 17:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know that the 2005 catch started on March 29 and that the text was telling that. But as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should not compete with the newspaper. Yes, I agree with you that time series of catches and quotas should be in the article. Preferable a table covering catches over several years by all sealing countries. I will look around for such information.
Meanwhile I think it is more confusing than informative adding one single number as if a disaster is happening: Hundreds of thousand seal being 'shot or clubbed to death'. The link you refer to was, as far as I can tell, to an activist group opposing sealing of political reasons. In my mind it is more relevant to discuss such issues in an environmentalist article than a straight forward article on the harp seal as such. I do not feel this is a one side of a story-issue, it more about telling the objective story (if possible).
Finally: Texts in Wikipedia are deleted all the time. This is an essential idea of the whole project, that texts are refined, corrected, modified, changed, - hopefully rather to the better than to the worse. The whole history is intact. From that perspective nothing is deleted, as it is always available. The discussion pages should be used when people do not agree and debates like this should rather be put on the discussion page of the article than here.
Arnejohs 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Its interesting that you deleted facts because you didn't like the way they were worded, and instead posted a big long quote of the opinion from a very obviously pro seal hunting organization. That's not NPOV. Anyhow, I removed the big long quote, worked in what I could from the paragraph you wrote, and added a bunch of information about both harp seals first of all, and the hunting secondarily. You can delete this section of your talk page after you read it, we can use the harp seal talk page for any other discussion. Generic Player 21:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ICES could hardly be labelled as a very obviously pro seal hunting organization. The scientific base of seal management is the responsibility of ICES, covered out by the most prominent seal researchers in the world. I would guess even you accept that as a NPOV.
Nevertheless I appreciate your new strategy of adding information even though I still find it rather biased. Your Canadian focus makes you forget that the Atlantic cod is more than the weak North-West Atlantic cod stock. I intend to make a few corrections if you don't mind. But don't worry, I will not delete sections (like you just did). I will however ask you to be a little bit more reserved using the very touchy term vandalism when people edit articles.
Arnejohs 22:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ICES is most certainly pro seal hunting. They do not consider ending seal hunting at all, for them it is entirely an issue of how many to kill, same with every other species. They consider wild animals to be a natural resource to be exploited, which is certainly an opinion, as many people feel otherwise. That quote would be like me putting in a page long quote from sea shepard, its not going to be very neutral.
What I wrote about cod is a pretty Canadian perspective obviously. Its not intentional, just that I am not a cod expert by any means and only really know about it from the Canadian perspective. Feel free to improve on it any way you can to reflect a more accurate global picture. I only deleted the quote because its really long for not much info, and the link to the ICES pdf covers their position pretty fully.
And I only called your deletion vandalism because the wikipedia NPOV guidelines explicitly say not to delete paragraphs containing information you think is biased, but to edit it to make it balanced. I'll try to be more tactful in the future. Generic Player 00:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Generic Player, you are not serious when you compare ICES with Sea Shepard! The latter is even committing crimes (like sinking ships) in their campaigns. ICES is an intergovernmental organisation with 19 member states: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The ICES Convention of 1964 is far from confirming your allegation. The fact that ICES was founded in 1902, long time before resource based regulation was an issue at all, should be sufficient to state my point. Today ICES gives advice based on consequence analyses from the best available biological knowledge, not recommendations. --- Arnejohs 05:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course I am. They are two groups with opposing viewpoints. It doesn't matter who is involved in ICES, their viewpoint is that seals, like all animals, are simply a resource. That is clearly an opinion, and not a fact. Much like moral/ethical objections are an opinion. Putting in a big quote from either side isn't helpful or on topic, simply stating that certain people feel each way, and possibly linking to their views is plenty. Consider it this way, at one point the prevailing opinion in some places was that african americans were possessions. Just because it was a majority opinion, that doesn't mean it was correct, and people who were against slavery were incorrect. People committed crimes to free slaves too, but that doesn't mean they were wrong. Sea shepard's opinion is not any less valid because they do something you disagree with. And of course, reporters and observers of the seal hunt who have cameras are assaulted and threatened all the time, both of which are criminal actions. Its misleading to pretend one side is innocent, obviously there are people on both sides of the issue that break laws.
What it comes down to is this: there's just no need for such a quote, referencing their opinion as it is now is fine. Just like there is no need for a page long quote of how cruel the hunt is, simply mentioning the veterinarians report is enough, although I should probably see if I can find a copy of it online to link to. Generic Player 17:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo request

Hej Arne, I found you on the list of Wikipedians from Norway and noticed that you live in Tromsø and occasionally contributed photos to Wikipedia. I'm currently in the process of bringing Rock carvings at Alta up to Featured Article quality, and I'm sorely missing a couple of photos, so I thought you have probably been to Alta and might be able to help me out. I'm especially looking for a photo of the museum building and maybe an overview of the whole site...and I'm not quite content with the fact that the article constantly talks about reindeer but there's no single photo of a reindeer carving :P If you have any photos from a previous visit to the site and would be willing to upload them, I'd be much obliged. Thanks, Ferkelparade π 13:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Business and Economics

Hi, Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Business and Economics? It was started recently, so it requires some people to chip in. Thanks. --Pamri • Talk 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whaling

The article I removed did not offer any reference to anything as far as I could detect (if you have them, I would love to see the underlying sources). It looks like a bunch of quotes glued together with some facts. It originated out of 1991, and things have been set straight after that.

As for courtcases, maybe start with these: Greenpeace Norge v. Magnus Gudmundsson and Anor, Oslo, March 17-21, 1992 (mixed verdict); Greenpeace e.V and Greenpeace Communications Ltd v. Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 7 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg; Francisco J. Palacio v. Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 7 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg; David McTaggart v. Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 7 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg; Greenpeace e.V. v. Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 12 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg. --KimvdLinde 22:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harp Seal

In the future, when attempting to edit articles, please learn how to do so before breaking a completely viable and functional article. Your removal of data, Categories and Interwiki-links is detrimental to the improvement of Wikipedia, if you need a place to mess with, try your own user page. Nate 20:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I admit that the categories were removed accidentally and I am sorry for that. I did not notice, thank your for correcting for that. But I also feel it is a bit unfair to blame me. As you soon will see if you go through the history of the harp seal article I have actually been trying to save the article I once started in May 2004. --- Arnejohs 22:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Nyksund Norway.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nyksund Norway.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bioeconomics

(Posted also on my page-JQ)

Dear John Quiggin, In my opinion it is obviously wrong to categorise Bioeconomics as Heterodox economics, as Bioeconomics builds directly on classical Welfare economics and applies a classical capital theoretic approach. Therefore I urge you to remove the Heterodox economics tag. Thank you. --- Arnejohs 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The article gives two definitions. The first is the one you describe, and the second referring to a paradigmatic shift towards a holistic synthesis of economics and biology. This latter definition seems to be assumed in a number of the links to bioeconomics, and it's for that reason that I added the Heteredox economics tag. Maybe you could expand the article with some references to clarify all this. JQ 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:MaReMa trans logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:MaReMa trans logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:MaReMa trans logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:MaReMa trans logo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 13:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Marema logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Marema logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have placed an explanatory scentence in the image description, but am not sure what is asked for ("use rationale"). I also have uploaded the logo of University of Tromsø and suppose this is the next to be deleted. A strange practise, which I suppose is specially designed for the situation people in US of A is facing... --Arnejohs 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Univ Tromsoe Logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Univ Tromsoe Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Atlantic cod capture 1950 2005.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Atlantic cod capture 1950 2005.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 09:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)