Hello Iselilja, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk·contribs), The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I understand your frustration with the delay. I see the article has been added to the list of old articles needing review at the DYK discussion page, so hopefully someone will pick it up relatively soon and make a final review. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
On 10 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caucasian Knot, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the news site Caucasian Knot does not have any editorial offices due to security concerns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caucasian Knot. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello,
I believe that you mis read the situation in Turkey. Turkish state was founded based on fascist ideologies of the early 20th century. I am a secular myself but not in the sense of the turkish interpretation of secularism, which is prohibiting religion.
the Progressive party was never a fundamentalist party, it is absurd to claim such. they were "progressive" as western liberals. Kemal Ataturk was seeking to become the sole leader of the young republic and he got rid of his opposition in very effective ways by the power of the courts called Istiklal Courts.
I kindly request that you research on this very topic, especially the role of the military in Turkey ever since the inception of the republic, and consult archives of the Time magazine for the executions of Kemal. you may search for "Dictator Kemal" for references. Please revoke your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien sojourner (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I understand these are contentious issues with many different opinions and I am no specialist. I don't think it's mainstream history to refer to the Atatürk government as fascist; nor that the 2007 demonstrations were calling for coup d'etats. The principle on Wikipedia is that we write articles based on what reliable, mainstream sources say. I suggest you take this discussion to the article's talk page, and argue your case there, including presenting reliable sources that back up your claims. Anyway, good luck in editing Wikipedia further. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
On 28 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carl Falck, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Carl Falck wrote an article titled "Some thoughts from Norway's oldest man" in 2013? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Falck. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, You helped create the Drammenshallen article. Your help is needed again. My Antrim Forum article has been deleted despite my attempts to expand it. Can you help recreate it by making it notable enough for Wikipedia? Here's what my article looked like before deletion.
Hello Evan. I remember well our previous encounters. I googled Antrim Forum a bit, but I didn't find anything that is truly new and important information that I think would overturn the deletion decision. So, my advice for the moment is simply to accept the delete result, even if you disagree with it. (We all have to accept things we disagree with at Wikipedia). Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I've finished fixing up the English (basically retranslating), so you may want to cast an eye over it for accuracy and especially for missing sections; it was expanded some time ago and not all parts of the Norwegian article were included. I'm sorry about the anachronisms regarding businesses that you had to fix earlier; I updated the information as best I could from the linked Norwegian articles, but the main article there still seems to be behind the times. I'd intended to come back to the section and find and add sources; thank you for doing so! Yngvadottir (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Right. I don't think I have anything particular to add or improve from the current version. No problem about your previous edit ; I had removed/corrected similar information some time before you wrote it in again, so I was a bit surprised to see it reinserted again, but that's just the nature of Wikipedia. It's difficult to keep business sections up to date due to the frequent buy and sell, merges, restructering and renaming in modern business. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Iselilja, the issues you raised while reviewing this DYK nomination appear to have been addressed; might you be able to revisit the review to see whether the article and hook now fulfill the criteria? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The "stated motivation" quotation is completely taken out of context. The context was a good-faith, unprompted effort to disclose my bias against LvMI, and emphasize my commitment to not letting that bias interfere with NPOV. Read her entire quotation and see for yourself. (In fact, Iselilja, why not just post it all, since you aren't near your word limit?)
WRT to your Rothbard/PResley quotes, you are quite right to be critical and I am sorry. Mocking Rothbard's physical appearance in his later years, and joking that Presley wouldn't be notable unless she was related to Elvis, was disrespectful and unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Right. The "stated motivation" was something I drafted a time ago; and at that time I did worry about the 500 words limit. For various reasons, I didn't continue my draft and only got back to it today; so it became shorter than I initially expected since I didn't continue to work on it. I could of course add the full sentence; on the other side; the present version highlights what my concern is and the full sentence and context should be clear from the attached diff which I expect the arbitrators will pay attention to (if they pay attention to my concern). I am always very worried about users who mainly edits articles on people/organisations etc. of which they hold a very negative view. This is kind of a pet concern of mine. Otherwise, my overall approach to the Austrian economics dispute is more nuanced than my one-sided evidence indicates and my intention have been to comment a bit on that on the evidence talk page. On several fringe and notability issues, I tend to be at least partly in agreement with you and "your side". At the moment, I am honestly pretty disinterested in the case and kind of regret that it is at the ArbCom, even though I previously felt it had to go that way. This is also part of the reason why I have had some problems concentration on getting evidence ready (and it became less extensive that I originally thought it would be). I can imagine it may be pretty stressful to be party of an ArbCom case; I did have doubts about whether I should present evidence; I did it because I think the things I mentioned is part of the picture, not because I think specific sanctions are needed solely per my concerns since you seem to recognise that the mocking tendencies that have been there should cease (hopefully Specifico agrees on this). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree with you, Iselilja. For example I said some things mostly tongue in cheek when I was quite a new editor and once I learned they concerned or offended others I naturally changed my tone and stopped doing that. We need to remember this is a public place and we need to be particularly sensitive about that. Unfortunately, some of these faux-pas have a life of their own and keep coming back. I think that over time, the quality of ones work is revealed and that's what matters. Regards. SPECIFICOtalk 00:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I do hope you will add your more "nuanced" remarks on AE/fringe because they contribute to the discussion. Steeletrap (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
These conversations, as initiated by Steeletrap, belong on the Evidence talk page. Otherwise someone might get the mis-impression you are trying to pressure someone privately, outside of ArbCom. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, Steeletrap is not pressuring me. SPECIFICOtalk 16:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to nominate me for editor of the week. I really, really appreciate it!!!
SiefkinDR (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I might be a little late, but I thought I was going to try either way. I've expanded Finn Hågen Krogh's article, and it would be awesome to have this on the main page during the individual sprint tomorrow. Do you have time to review it this afternoon? If not, it's no big deal, but thank you either way. Regarding, the credit on Ståle Sandbech's article - I thought you deserve it since I only did 4,5 times expansion while you did the last 0,5x expansion ;) Mentoz (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I will. It was also a good idea to expand the Sandbech article and get that applicable for the main page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, thank you. Do you have any idea of how to get the hook about Krogh first being selected and then "wrecked" as we say in Norway, short and concise? I watch actually watching the slopestyle-final, and was entering Sandbech's article to find out something and thought as a reader that "this article was weak, it needs expanding" - it did get better after your "minor copyedit" but I thought I should expand it for DYK. Mentoz (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Related to the Winter Olympics: I just found out that the king of biathlon, Ole Einar Bjørndalen, has been suggested to been posted at In the News, for his feat the other day, but most oppose-votes are opposing due to the state of Bjørndalen's article. (see WP:ITN/C What do you think about we try to improve the quality of that article, so that it would be ready for ITN? I'm going to work now, but will have a look at the article later tonight and tomorrow. Cheers. Mentoz (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the Bjørndalen ITN suggestion and I thought it was a shame too that the article was in such a bad shape that it wasn't applicaple for the main page. I'll see if I do something, I didn't have the motivation to start alone; also because of the time issue.I'll think about a Krogh hook; the story has been covered in some English sources, so looking at them maybe will help. We'll see. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
For User:Iselilja; Thanks for your note, and I have requested admin to move the page to the proper transliteration. If you need further assist with the Wikipedia conventions for Cyrillic transliteration certainly let me know and I shall try to clarify any questions. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
On 18 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nina Johnsrud, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that four shots were fired at the house of Norwegian crime journalist Nina Johnsrud in 2006? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nina Johnsrud. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 21 February 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sverre Valen, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sverre Valen conducted his last concert in 2013, aged 88? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sverre Valen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The reason I'm not too concerned about EllenCT's POV comments is that I'm confident most editors who join the fray will edit in good faith. I'm less concerned with EllenCT's sources, than what she does with them, mostly OR or irrelevant to many articles she's been editing lately. Other editors understand wikipedia. I have faith ;)
EllenCT is unique, but canvassing at WP:Econ will not help her.Mattnad (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am not concerned with EllenCT getting harmful impact on the articles eithers as I see there are well-qualified editors there to counter faulty edits or arguments. I am impressed with the quality of many editors editing some of the economics articles. Still, having pov-pushing notices on the Economics project front page will just make the project look underservingly unserious; I believe she violates WP:Canvassing with her notifications and that should not stand, even we can trust most and especially long-time editors not to be swayed by it. Otherwise, my concern with Ellen is that she might waste too much time of other users by starting to many awkward disputes and keeping arguing after normal consensus has been reached; but that’s for you to decide whether you can and will put up with it or ask for some kind of bans. I am not going to spend much time on her myself. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If it gets the point of needing to ask for a ban, I might come to you for some pointers. I've never done that before.Mattnad (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Winter Olympics medals per capita and per GDP
As your opinion was clearly pro-Keep, I hope it's okey to say this in the beggining of it. If I am wrong, then revert my edit here. Thanks.--DancingPhilosopher(talk) 10:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your thinking, but I was deliberately refraining from a formal vote because while I emotionally am leaning keep, I wanted to think a bit more before possibly casting a vote. I am also thinking about suggesting that the article should include "most medals per nation" which is also unofficial table as well, but was dominating the US media (because the US was leading that table during most of the Olympics; even though Russia overtook them also there in the end result). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Agnes Abuom at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
On 2 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aasa Helgesen, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Aasa Helgesen was elected the first female mayor in Norway after an election where she didn't know she was on the ballot? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, Iselilja! Last week I came across the Elizabeth Fedde article and edited it a bit. However, Norwegian isn't my first language and resources about her, especially her later life, are probably in Norwegian if not in Norway or on High Beam or Questia to which I don't have access. Though I wrote that her father was a seaman and her husband a farmer, I suspect that all were of higher social class than usually implied by the English words. Perhaps it's an article you can improve for the Wikicup, like the Aase Helgensen article today -- which helped me to figure out where she was trained (and correct a disambiguation link). In any event, good editing and good luck.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jweaver28. Thanks for directing her to the Elizabeth Fedde article. Interesting. I had never heard about her before actually; she isn't very known in Norway, but Norsk biografisk leksikon had an entry on her. It could have been a fine article for DYKs Women's History Month, but unfortunately it can't be used as DYK because it would need to be five-folded expanded and the article is already so long. The only way I could possibly use it for Wikicup (and get it to the mainpage) was if I improved it into a Good Article, but I have never written any GAs before. I couldn't find anything that indicated that her family was anything but ordinary fisher-farmers. Her father had to give up fishing when Elizabeth's mother got sick and later died. There were seven siblings. According to the 1865 census the family had one horse, two cows and eight sheeps. She started studies in Christiania after her father died so maybe she got a small inheritance. She also had a older sister who had emigrated to the US, so maybe she got some money from the sister? But this is just speculation; I don't have any particular new, verified information to add to the article now, but I shall keep it in mind. Thansk for correcting the Aasa Helgesen article. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I've never done a Good Article either, nor a DYK (that 5x expansion criteria is a stunner!). For what it's worth, I hoped the Norsk biografisk leksikon mentioned either her husband or father as a minor nobleman, or that somewhere there was a picture of her, or further info about where she was buried (comparable to findagrave in the U.S.). I couldn't understand/translate the leksikon's reference to Norway's economic hard times at the time of her (and apparently her sister's and brother's) emigration to the US, and presume she didn't have children of her own because she was 45 when she returned to Ole and Egersund. I suspect Fedde continued helping around Egersund in the following decades, perhaps in one of the churches barely mentioned in that wikipedia article, or in the seaman's home movement (that I know about as Scandanavian-led both from the Philadelphia one's association with Old Swede's Church, as well as chatting about with our assistant rector whose first career was in the Navy, though I can't find any article about it on wikipedia). Anyway, the articles brought back fond memories of my student exchange year in Denmark long ago (and a couple of brief trips up to Norway)--and for what it's worth I chuckled at her Minnesota link because of Garrison Keillor's modern and near-trademark references to Norwegian bachelor farmers there. It's also interesting to note that Norwegian society was egalitarian way back then, if a mere seaman's son could marry the daughter of the consul in New York City (then as now a major port)....Jweaver28 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You do know you're not supposed to remove other people's comments unless they are clearly in breach of WP rules, don't you? 86.173.196.16 (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The (Personal attack removed) was more than capable of removing it himself, you know - or are you his wet nurse too? Thrub (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The next time you feel the need to do something like this, would you please discuss it with me first? You are well aware of the sources on the issue at WT:ECON#Current tasks, and it is very hard to assume that you are editing in good faith when you have still not responded to my specific questions to you there. Do you intend to answer them? In the mean time I will start a new thread as you suggested in your edit summary. Are you familiar with the WP:TALK rules on when it is appropriate to "hat" someone else's questions? EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, two editors had already told you that your start of the section "I know what the most reliable sources say. I would like to know what other editors think the second most reliable differing sources say" was not constructitive. You adding another "riddle" seemed similar non-constructive. This came on top of a discussion you prolonged in a section above which also lead nowhere. Now, after un-hatting, you have provided links to 7 sources (of which some needs to be downloaded) and ask how other users would summarize them (plus a "source book") as you don't have time to do so yourself. I don't find that very helpful either and would suggest that you undo your two latest edits (un-hatting and adding the sources) and rather come back when you have had time to read your own sources if you at that point have some concrete suggestions to improvement of the article based on those sources. As for your adding "current tasks" to the Economics page, I pointed out that per WP:Canvassing notices to project pages about disputes etc. need to be in a neutral form. I found your various questions to me to be quite irrelevant as the principle laid out in the canvassing policy is quite clear. In general, I have concern that your editing to several talk pages is eccentric and non-constructive; and thus a waste of other editors time if they feel obligated to answer. As you know, I proposed an admonishment of you for being disruptive in the Austrian Economics ArbCase. I believe in being polite and patient towards other users, but there is a limit to that patience. I think we are done here. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you think your personal opinion about what is and is not "constructitive" should override the instructions in WP:TALK and allow you to hide other editors comments when they are discussing improvements to the article? Are you claiming that because you didn't like my questions that they aren't about improving the article? Do you intend to try to improve it, respond to the questions, evaluate the proposed sources, or summarize them? Of course I have already read them. All internet documents need to be downloaded regardless of their format. Why exactly do you think my questions specifically directed to you at WT:ECON#Current tasks are "quite irrelevant"? I had no idea you had made those accusations until now, but I addressed the gist them on the talk page anyway. I may very well be eccentric but you are obviously using that term as a personal attack and I ask that you strike it per WP:NPA. It seems as though you also are accusing me of being non-constructive. Have you seen the work in my edit history? I have clearly contributed far more than you have, and nearly all of my edits have been noncontroversial. EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District DYK nom
I have reworded the hook a bit to make the attribution of the quoted bit plain and also made the relevant changes in the intro. And the article's finished, with a section on legal commentary. Also you might want to read my original followup to your review, if you haven't already. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep. My fault and I am sorry. I was so very tired, but I will try not to repeat making another half-baked nom. and hope it will OK for this time . Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
On 18 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marie Simonsen, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that political editor Marie Simonsen has voiced concern that many women may avoid public debate because they are more likely to experience grave cyberbullying than men are? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Simonsen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Iselilja, were you planning to return to this review? Piotrus has responded to your comments, and I was wondering whether he has addressed your issues.
If you don't plan to continue, please let me know, and I'll put out a call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not having followed up, User:BlueMoonset. I approved it now. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Iselilja. I've just promoted it to prep 3, so it should hit the main page very soon... BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the nomination, Islelilja! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations. Glad to see the DYK process went smoothly and quickly. My effort was of course mostly to notice that the article was elligible for DYK, and I kind of wish there was a procedure to let GAs more routinely be nominated for DYKs, as it may often be the only chance of getting on the main page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
User "Complainer" is doggedly deleting an explanatory half-sentence in the lead on Poena cullei the meaning of parricide (a not all usual word), claiming that explanation is a "disruption" of the page. he is now up on 3RR.Arildnordby (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one issue that may come with having an article on the frontpage . If I go into the dispute now, we may be accused of violating WP:Canvassing, so I better stay out. The best thing you can do is to warn the other user of their talk page of edit warring (but of course you have to consider your own edits as well), start a discussion at the talk page and bring it to the WP:3RR board if the edit warring continues. I understand it's annoying to have the article in what you consider a sup-optimal version while it is on the main page, but you will revert him at your own risk of being blocked for edit warring, so you have to consider whether it is important enough. I don't really think Wikipedia has a good solution for these kind of situtions. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I din't make it clear. I do not beg you to revert "on my behalf", but if you could think over what your own opinion is, and possibly give your 2c on the Talk Page (whoever you choose to agree with!), that wouldn't count as canvassing, I think?Arildnordby (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. I didn't instinctively have a strong opinion one way or another regarding the underlying dispute. I am not fully concentrated on Wikipedia at the moment either; so not so very inclined to go into a discussion right now. I'll see later. I do hold the position that an article should normally stay in the stable version when a dispute starts and until it is settled; this is also the principle of WP:BRD, but if one party violates this it's not so easy to do anything without getting into an editwar. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
never mind. Not too big an issue anyways whwn calming down a bit.Arildnordby (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
