User talk:Jobjörn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /Archive 1 - from the beginning until October 25, 2006.
• /Archive 2 - until January 10, 2007.
• /Archive 3 - until March 13, 2007.

Contents 1 Go... 2 defaultsort is your friend! 3 Chemsitry Comments 3.1 (section break without actual use) 4 Gotland userbox 5 Smile! 6 Nyamko Sabuni 7 Usage of fair use images in the user namespace 8 Tack! 9 Category talk:Cities in Kurdistan 10 Re: Dan Donegan 11 Swedish general election, 1921 12 Members of the Riksdag

[edit] Go...

...to Sweden for msg. --Boongoman 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Woaah. Now you are making stuff confusing. Please stick to en-wiki for en-wiki matters, it took me a while to figure out "Sweden" meant "Swedish Wikipedia". But well: what kind of document is it? From what office? If it's an official document, it's bound to be published somewhere. And, remember, that it's true doesn't mean it should be included - if there has been no news reports or anything about it, it's hardly notable enough for inclusion. Stating that "Infon ska in, så enkelt är det" will ~hardly promote healthy discussion about it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] defaultsort is your friend!

Hello! I noticed your edit to Mikael Odenberg, so I thought I should drop by and tell you about the wonders of {{DEFAULTSORT}}.

A sortkey is an alternative term the article should be sorted by when listed in a category. For example to add an article called Albert Einstein to the category "people" and have the article sorted by "Einstein, Albert". You would type "[[Category:People|Einstein, Albert]]". This kind of sortkey you successfully added to Mikael Odenberg in your edit.

But, I reverted most of your edit! Why? Because there is a feature called "Default sort key", which changes the default sort key used by categories from the name of the article to the one specified with the magic word {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Instead of adding |Odenberg, Mikael you simply add {{DEFAULTSORT:Odenberg, Mikael}} above the categories, which I had already done in this case.

Thank you for your otherwise very valuable contribution! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, neat. I didn't see that. Apparently, this is a new function in MediaWiki 1.10. That's really handy knowledge for the other Wikimedia projects that I'm involved in as well. Thanks for letting me know! —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemsitry Comments

I have noticed that you seem to spend a lot of time commenting on chemistry articles, claiming that they need to be either put in context or wikified. I was wondering if you could put in context your own level of knowledge in chemistry, so that the articles can be reeditted to be applicable to your own level of knowledge. With the chemical reaction stubs, I have been assuming that people will generally be looking at them if they have a basic level of chemical knowledge (i.e. one of about an A-Level student in England) and will not need a full explanation of why the reaction proceeds as it does. If this does not fulfil your ideals what else will I need to add, complete mechanisms with comments of facial and stereo selectivities and such. If so this is simply not possible as there will be a large amount of repeated information on Wikipedia. Please get back to me on this topic. - Curious Gregor

Hello! Eh. Lately I've indeed been editing chemistry articles; BUT only to remove improper categories (such as those you added to, well, a damn lot of articles). Using AutoWikiBrowser. On some, tags such as {{wikify}} have been posted, but not many. I may have edited one or two chemical reaction stubs, but I don't know which ones. Point out more specifically which articles you refer to and I'll see what I can do. Do note, however, that my knowledge of chemistry is extremely basic, and my contributions to chemistry articles have only been clean-up/maintenance work. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Its okay. I'm a qualified chemist, but you seem to be suggesting for example on the Bechamp Reaction that more detail is needed. To me it seems clear. Also on the category front, they were not incorrectly labelled. I have been putting them into the topmost category they can go into so as to create a list of all the chemists that appear on wikipedia. This is because it is otherwise hard to see who may or may not need to be added. I have been finding your editting very unhelpful in removing them from this category. I have not said anything as you seem likely to start an edit war. I have made suggestions in the ways to improve wikipedia about categorisation as it is currently a very poor set up. I would appreciate your help in getting this idea across to m ore people so we can rectify our disagreement about categorisation. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your thinking, but the current classification guidelines state that they shouldn't be included in top-level categories if lower-level categories are available. Why? Because otherwise the categories would become mindbogglingly big. Not in the case of Category:Chemists perhaps, but think of Category:Politicians... see Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines, point 3. As you do have a point, we still have List of chemists - which you suggested be deleted (or, well, merged into the Category namespace). You should know, however, that there are ways to extract data from a category and its subcategories using some tools, see for example User:PockBot.
Just as a last note, please refrain from adding articles to top-level categories for now, and instead wait to see if you manage to push through your policy changing suggestion - that is however not very likely. Cheers! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall continue doing it my way, you can keep doing it yours. For Chemists it is stupid to classify them by country as if they are notable there impact will spread worldwide and they do not necessarily work in the countries they came from. For example the Curies should only be in the category Polish Chemsits by your way of thinking. However, this would confuse many people who incorrectly believe them to be French. Whilst if they are in the uppermost category for Chemists then they an be found. I cannot see why you think the policy change is foolish, I have talked to other users on wikipedia who believe that the idea has some merit and would make it a much more intuitive website. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have thought some more on your reclassification and think that you would be far better off reclassifiying them all according to their subspecialities. This again would be more intuitive. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you will not keep doing it your way. Doing so, while knowing that it is against community consensus (as expressed in Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines), will be considered disruptive editing (vandalism, in other words) and will get you blocked in no time. However, you seem to have misunderstood my way of thinking: you seem to think I am suggesting that articles be placed in ONE sub-category only. This is not the case. Your example, Marie Curie, is classified under Category:French chemists, Category:French physicists, Category:Polish chemists, Category:Polish physicists, Category:Radioactivity, Category:Discoverers of chemical elements, and many others. In other words, subcategories are not mutually exclusive: however, a inclusion subcategory in a subcategory excludes inclusion in a category higher up in the tree as the article then will be included twice. Do you understand?
Classifying them all by subspecialities might be OK if these subspecialities are outlined with a proper definition, preferrably written in Category:Chemists by subspeciality which I suppose would be a good name for a category that would include your hypothetical speciality-categories. Whatever the case there is no need to replace the Chemists by nationality-categories. Do you understand? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) User:TerriersFan apparently agrees with me, in a quite straightforward manner. Cheers. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't agree with you, you got rid of diocese of Canterbury and kept Church of England, he did the opposite. Also I feel that subsections of the church of england are good categorised in that manner, whilst chemists are best not categorised by location. If you think of a famous chemist, do you immediately think, "Oooh I know where he came from". No you think "Oooh I know what work he is famous for carrying out, therefore identifying the field." This is where your reclassification fails. Hence, you are in fact making wikipedia less user friendly. Also from Marie Curie you can see taht people have incorrectly indentified her as French, which she most definitely was not. Rather she should be categorised in Category:Chemists who worked in France - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When I removed the Diocese of Canterbury category, it did not exist. It does now, and it is a subcategory of Church of England - and as thus Church of England should be removed. And TerriersFan did remove it. Whatever the case, I don't think you see my point: I'm not saying "no" to categorizing chemists by sub-speciality, as you can do... both! So go ahead, classify them according to sub-speciality. Just don't try putting them in a top-level category when a more specific low-level category exists, just as Wikipedia:Categorization states. Category:Chemists who worked in France does not exist and should probably not either, as Category:French chemists will do - Marie Curie lived most of her life in France and was as thus French. She was ALSO Polish, as she was born there. The category name is "French chemists", not "Chemists born in France". Do you see my point? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this correct. If you loved in America for a portion of your life you would consider yourself American? A French chemist would be a Chemist who is french, not a chemist who worked in france, this is just the way the english language works. So it may just be a misunderstanding on your behalf. I also still contest that chemsits can not be defined by geographical regions, like politicians can. This is because politicians will work for one specific nation (geographical entity) whilst chemists do not. I have asked a number of fellow chemists if they would ever categorise chemists by natiojnality and they all agreed that it would be a clunky categorisation, with little or no meaning. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (section break without actual use)

No, but if I lived in America for most of my life, I would consider myself American. In example, I was born in Dalarna in Sweden, but at the age of three I moved to Gotland, so I consider myself a Gotlander. But I would also categorize myself as as from Dalarna where I to write a Wikipedia article on myself.
Whatever the case, how I would categorize myself or how you would categorize yourselves is of no importance. Marie Curie is considered french by a number of reputable sources. See WP:ATT: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
Categorizing chemists by nationality is of meaning. I can image thousands upon thousands of Swedish children being asked to write about a Swedish chemist in school. Or Portuguese children writing about Portuguese chemists. It is of interest to historians - and I do think historians have more use of Wikipedia than chemists do. Nevertheless, this categorization by geographical entity is not in conflict with your proposal to categorize them by subspeciality. Let's have both! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gotland userbox

Here is a Gotland userbox:

• Code: {{User:UBX/Gotland}}
• Result: . - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Very beautiful. However, I must say I'd rather use the one I just created:

• Code: {{User:UBX/Gotland2}}
• Result:

Thank you anyways though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You should've put {{User:UBX/Gotland2}} instead of {{User:UBX/Gotland}}. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Please feel free to go ahead and do it yourself. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you should consider archiving your talk page once in a while... see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to. I don't really want a archived talk page. Hope you understand. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

- Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nyamko Sabuni

You should really look up the facts before writing and especially before reverting to your own version. Sabuni was a member of the Riksdag from 2002 until 2006. She was not re-elected in 2006 but instead became a minister in the new government. If you don't believe me, the facts are to be seen at the web page of the Riksdag: [1]. I will correct this again (!!) once and for all. Please don't revert the article anymore. // 83.183.124.123 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right; I am sorry. It was this edit which confused things for me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of fair use images in the user namespace

Hello again Gregor. I see you reverted my removal of the copyrighted University of Sussex logo (Image:University of sussex small logo.gif). I must ask you to reconsider this, as the image is uploaded to Wikipedia under a "fair use" license, meaning it is not free and may only be used in some contexts. According to Wikipedia's policy on fair use (Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy), fair use images may be used only in the article namespace - see point 9 in the policy I linked. Therefore, I must again ask you to remove the following images from your userpage:

1. Image:Imperial logo.gif
2. Image:University of sussex small logo.gif
3. Image:UCL-logo-new.png
4. Image:Drexciyathereturnofdrexciya.JPG

Thanks in advance. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That you have made an edit (to your userpage, even) after my posting of the above message indicates that you have read it. Any response, or will you continue ignoring me? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it takes me time to find alternative images, I also have written to UCL to see if I can permission to use the logo. If I was a member of staff then the use of the logo would be fine, however, the rules seem less clear if you are a graduate student. I would fix things sooner if you were less vexatious. - Synthesis for all 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your failure to respond coupled with your earlier reverting of my removal of copyrighted content led me to (wrongly) assume you were going to ignore my inquiries. I am glad we have sorted it out now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tack!

Hej Jobjörn, tack, I'll do it that way nasta.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Category talk:Cities in Kurdistan

Well, you can consider using Template:Uw-npov1 and the follow on ones since these edits may be a violation of the NPOV policy. If the problem continues, then asking at AIV if you consider it vandalism, or moving it to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. In any case, remember to be civil and don't violate the three revert rule. Vegaswikian 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dan Donegan

Thanks ^^ This article needed clean up and had so much useless information... Glad to help! See you later, friend! Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish general election, 1921

Hi there, The figures are from the Nordisk familjebok, suppl. ed. (1926). I'll add some notes to the article. If you are interested in the official figures for all Swedish legislative elections, the Riksdagstrycket is the source to use. Riksdagstrycket may provide you with all relevant information for legislative elections since 1866 (at least), when the bi-cameral system was introduced. Best regards, --Odengatan 11:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Members of the Riksdag

Is the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Members of the Riksdag for present members only or for both past and present? Thanks, 97198 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is for the present members, those listed here: List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010. I am currently working to bring List of members of the Riksdag, 2002-2006 (the preceding term) up to featured list status, so I'm not working with Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Members of the Riksdag right now. I'm soon done with 2002-06, though, so I'll get back to the current MPs then. I've noticed your contributions btw, I'm glad to get some help! Thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)