Talk:Einar Már Guðmundsson

verification required

what kind of books does this author write? what are their names? what are the ISBN codes? where is the verification of the informatuion contained in this article. perhaps the article creator could re-direct the destructive energy applied elsewhere, to building this site into a robust and believeable article, before the surgeons arrive...moza 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. dcandeto 11:34, 28 March 2006

Its clearly not an attack from the perspective of anyone out here, but if I believed in prod and afd as START points then it would be all out for deletion until fit for wiki.moza 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC) UTC)

look i did some work for you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einar_M%C3%A1r_Gu%C3%B0mundson now who made the spelling error, you or him? which article will stay and which will go, ie one can be absorbed by the other.moza 05:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what work you did for me, other than finding an older article with a misspelled name. My spelling is correct, unless Icelandic for "son" has changed from "son" to "on", and the German-language Wikipedia is also wrong, since my article's just a translation of the first part of the German one. dcandeto 11:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not personal, to be a person you have to have a name, I'm just trying to re-balance the books, as it were, insisting on justice. I'm quite sure that I want the same as you do, it seems clear that this article requires a lot of work, i dont wanna know about the detail, just the principle. If you expect others to get it right, you should get it right, at home, first. nothin personal, I havent a clue who or what you are, sorry if you choose to take it on board that way, i didnt insist on your anonymous stance. I am happy and proud to be who i am named; Paul Moss.moza 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempted speedy deletion

Take a look at the interwikis; this author is clearly notable per the Icelandic and German versions. No one should be attempting to speedy this article. dcandeto 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I partly agree with you, but its not an article yet in the accepted sense of wiki policy, so they would be correct to Prod, if they were not vandals, and had some discussion first. But now you may also come to understand another point that I am trying to make, if you run around deleting the work of real people, about real people or comics, either way you are going to incur the wrath of less disciplined editors, and get a pile more of what you are getting a little of now. Personally i think all vandalism is a waste, and i would prefer to see a system where some qualification is required to edit say the top half of the page, at the very least some level of reality check. give the vandals the bottom half.. whatever, I would revert that clear vandalism such as was put here, myself, and i see that requires no discussion, its just horrible and should not exist in the first place. In the Icelandic author case he has some verfification, but what if he didnt, I would expect the article to be allowed to grow and mature, would you expect it to be deleted? what if the verification was contested, would you be happy with deletion until proved, or would you expect it to sit through the process? you see, if you search with a spelling error in the search term then may come up with nothing or very little, and that may affect the outcome of an afd. If the article has a spelling error in the name, then a google search by all the afd participants will come up with little reason to not vote delete, I personally experienced that, and I have corrected the situation, but not until it was too late for that afd. Now I have to get a ghostwriter and some ISBN numbers etc etc. moza 02:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a stub, but it's clearly not non-notable per the already extant articles in four other languages' Wikipedias (and books for sale on Amazon). My main limitation in translating further is not knowing English titles for the Icelandic works, either because they haven't been translated or because I can't find them.

Jazzygirl007/Jazzygirl006 is attempting to delete my articles because I had her article on Cody Hedman deleted after it was reposted several times. I have several friends who get more distinct hits on Google than Cody Hedman, and they aren't notable; this is merely retaliation by her. This guy clearly isn't notable outside Nanaimo. dcandeto 03:09, 30 March 2006(UTC)

Dcandeto, sadly, I think thats QED from me. (point proven)moza 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Far from it. My AfD-ing an article that didn't cite sources and had a single editor is far from someone trying to speedy an article translated from German Wikipedia. dcandeto 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok i'll try with a bite size chunk so we maybe make some progress; Is the quantity of editors important when deciding if an article subject is notable? what is the logic to that?moza 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No; you're missing the point. The point is that the author of Flies Inside The Sun made no attempt to assert notability other than to remove {{db-band}} and {{prod}} templates. dcandeto 07:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont even care about ONE article on its own, that article has taken care of itself, it was never the point, and its my point so how can i be missing it? thats one of the difficulties here, but anyway, trying to keep it simple, does the number of editors count? in other words if there is only one significant editor with perhaps a couple of extraneous adjustments (eg wiki process) then is the article somehow LESS value in a notability sense? I'm trying hard not to play with words or emotions here, just get to some core agreements, step by step.moza 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NN-bio tag

Dcandeto please cite sources to attest to the notability of the writer. If not, it should be held up to the same standards as other works such as mine (which I believe was a lot more notable than this) and deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzygirl006 (talk • contribs)

The nn-bio tag is not appropriate for this article, because it does assert notability. If you believe it is not in fact notable, you will have to use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- SCZenz 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that's not appropriate is constantly trying to get this article deleted out of spite, especially when it's cited in four other Wikipedias (I'm not differentiating the two Norwegian ones). My original contributions were just translations of part of de:Einar Már Guðmundsson. dcandeto 03:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

YES, agreed, spite is NEVER appropriate in wiki, but there are humans around with feelings that do get hurt despite alll the care we can try and take. I have just now seen the first external reference and i have seen that that reference says that the subject writes poetry! But I still dont know much more than that, and if that reference is valid even, or biased. I havent seen refs to any of the other wikis. I made the point that notability isnt the real measurement of whether an article stays or not, I have FELT that this article would be able to be verified in time, it all depends on who arrives and how many there are, and what their wiki politics are, as to how they VOTE in an afd. I am trying to cut through the smoke screen of emotion in this place and suggest that articles are often lost due to inadequate research under time constraints of afd, and little or no discussion prior. At least in this case there has been some discussion, and for sure the opportunity to make the verifications and increase the robustness of the article in wiki terms. Please try and understand that I have been aiming at a more general case, to deliver discussion that applies across the board, and not targeting this article, otherwise the feeding frenzy typical of afd would have crucified it long ago. I'm an inclusionist heavily opposed to deletionism, and that doesnt mean vandalism, but just wanting to draw the line in a different place, resulting in less pain and better articles. But there does seem resistance to cleaning up articles and raising their standard to wiki, by authors that are running around cutting up other peoples work, that seems (I emphasise it only seems) to be a common attribute to these cases. I find a great deal of irony in that, but no-one else seems to. moza 23:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already verified—in fact, it's verified in the post of mine that you're responding to! Sources aren't required to be in English. dcandeto 01:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool! it seems to finally be on an upward path, now some cosmetics would be nice.moza 05:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Einar Már Guðmundsson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20051102045629/www.bokmenntir.is/rithofundur.asp?cat_id=659&author_id=21&lang=8 to http://www.bokmenntir.is/rithofundur.asp?cat_id=659&author_id=21&lang=8
• Added archive http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20051102045629/www.bokmenntir.is/rithofundur.asp?cat_id=659&author_id=21&lang=8 to http://www.bokmenntir.is/rithofundur.asp?cat_id=659&author_id=21&lang=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)