Thrane

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Svilaj

No problem, just keep this consensus in mind while newpage patrolling, it will save you time and effort. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism

The change from Spain to Iberia is simply out of a desire to stop the [[Category:Operas by setting]] page from becoming unwieldy. Operas by country may be added later. Orthorhombic (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I simply failed to see any reason, as you did not leave an edit summary and even blanked a page beforehand. I won't interfere with the renaming itself, if you guys at the Opera Project are agreed about the change. --Thrane (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason is very straightforward. Many operas are set in a wide range of locations. Take Aroldo for instance. If we were to place two different setting markers at the foot of the page, the category options would be too cluttered. Larger geographical, non-time specific toponyms like the Levant, Low Countries, British Isles etc. avoid the Category becoming unworkable with numerous country names from different periods in history.Orthorhombic (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, no worries. As stated above, I will not interfere with the renaming itself, as I don't have anything to do with the Opera project. My point simply was that you hadn't put anything in the edit summary, which made your edit look suspicious, and that you blanked a page, which is normal behavior for people who are trying to make unconstructive edits. It's not that I disagree with your reasoning, and I do recognize that you had a perfectly valid reason for your change in wording. Thrane (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I take your point about edit summaries. Cheers for the input.Orthorhombic (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Danish

A separate point: I've just read your thoughts on Danish. I wouldn't be too down on the prospects for the Danish language version of wikipedia. You're right that there is a big danger that Wikipedia becomes too Anglophone-centric. But there is also a danger that many minority languages end up being dominated by English and this worries me. --Orthorhombic (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• You're probably right. Now, of course I don't know your own country of origin or whether you have any proficiency in Danish, but the way I see it is, that of course the ideal situation would be a quality Wikipedia in every language. The real problem is getting people to work on it. I became somewhat disillusioned with the Danish Wikipedia when I witnessed some discussions that nearly amounted to outright personal attacks, because it seemed that the "leading group" on the project was very closed to newcomers. So, my skepticism isn't just based on my worries about the amount of potential editors, but also on my apprehension regarding the administration of small Wikipedias. Thrane (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, difficult situation. (I'm from Kirkcaldy, in the United Kingdom, by the way). On my first outing in Wikipedia, I was brutally assaulted for breaching some minor rule and had loads of rude comments plastered all over my talk page. I find that it can help to begin by doing jobs that other people have requested. What did the personal attacks consist of? What was this project that had a leading group? Orthorhombic (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The Danish Wikipedia. There was an editor, won't mention his name due to respect for his privacy, whose views might have been a little extreme, but he was excluded from the community although it seemed, at least to me, that he was willing to discuss the correctness of his contributions. And, in general, people at dawiki do seem friendly at first, but when edits were made that were out of line according to the leading group, I just got this feeling that I wasn't that welcome. Of course, one could doubt the seriousness of my contribution to the project, after all, I was fourteen at the time, but I believe everybody should be treated the same way regardless of age, after all, not all teenagers on Wikipedia are vandals. Thrane (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This is why the WP:BITE is so important. Also I think that all participants should find three contributions to praise for every one that they criticise. How much friendlier would Wikipedia be then to valuable contributors. Orthorhombic (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Columbus, Ohio

i didnt post a bad link. i'm simply trying to revert this horribly inaccurate statement that people from columbus are called columbusites. that is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard as a native for over 20 yrs. apparently you are valuing some pointless article written in the 90s over accuracy of wikipedia. i'm not sure why its so important in the description of our great city to state that natives are called 'columbusites'. to me, it seems completely irrelevant and cheeseballish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.239.226.117 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry for placing the wrong template, the warning was supposed to be regarding adding unsourced content. You see, it's not that I have any doubts regarding your knowledge as a native, I couldn't reasonably have any. Of course, you're supposed to be bold, but it's common policy to not remove sourced content unless you replace it with some other sourced content. If you disagree about such things, discuss it at the talk page. (BTW, please sign your messages on talk pages) Thrane (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CutePDF

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article CutePDF, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No indication of notability.

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. Postoak (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hej! Har du planer den 18. august?

Eller kan jeg lokke dig med til mødet med Odense Bys Museer? Det vil jo ikke gøre noget, hvis det også kunne være en chance for at møde andre wikipedianere... --Palnatoke (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theca externa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of CutePDF for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CutePDF 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/CutePDF 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. Be..anyone (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2015 (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) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 06:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Thrane. 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)

Credibility of Wikipedia

Sorry Thrane, we are having a ToK class to test the credibility of Wikipedia and we wanted to see how long the page could remain with mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somebody1235457 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So do you think the rest of the article "Public image of Donald Trump" is "neutral"? And are you the official arbiter of neutrality on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thrane. 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, Thrane. 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)