who I can else request? (Idot (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC))
Hello. I am not quite sure. As, I understand (from your link), there was an ongoing discussion on Meta, so it seems like it was handled there. Maybe you could post something at Village Pump and maybe to Philippe who works at WMF. Or else, you'll just have to wait to July 21, to post it at Jimmy's page again. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
OK! I just tried to as Philippe (Idot (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC))
Hope you will like it here, LittleGustav! Wikipedia can be a bit confusing, but you seem to be doing just fine! ~ [Headline added by me] Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for using your brain to do the right thing. Few have the courage to make a stand for what is correct.
Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't immediately know what you were referring to; I think I know now, and it wasn't a big deal on my part; we'll see how it eventually works out. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Your edit on Kjell Magne Bondevik was the fastest I've ever seen anyone add a citation after I added a "Citation needed" template. Thanks! —Shelley V. Adams 19:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I was just hanging around here and had it on my watchlist, so..Very good you have given that article a little care. I'll see if I can do a little more. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! As you can see I've registered now! How can I have the opt out? --Sur12kf (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Welcome as a new user! To opt-out: Go to preferences (at top of your userpage), then click on Gadgets and scroll down to Edits and mark the first box there, which reads: Remove VisualEditor from the user interface. Please, ask again if there are problems. Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Iselilja, we discussed on the article Prosecution of Marte Dalelv. The section "References to Shari'a/Four witnesses" is for me not so important because Zina is also liked in the article and so on ... . I would say another thing would be more important: I think the similar case which was also really good in the media would be more interesting and should get also an article; compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosecution_of_Marte_Dalelv#Another_Dubai_rape_case_-_Alexandre_Robert_-_from_2007_.28wrote_it_on_this_talk_page.2C_to_prevent_confusion.29
But I have not the time to make an article. I asked also Gobonobo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gobonobo; but he did not answer. Both are sometimes in the media named as "Dubai rape case", so that I think by the way that we have looked on the second case (made edits on the article), it would be logical to make it also with the first case. I could place quotes of the German newspapers if there would be an English article to the first known case. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Soenke. It does seem that the Alexandre Robert case has been covered in several reliable sources and politicians etc. were involved in it, so I would guess it is notable for Wikipedia. As for me, I mainly came to the Marte Dalelv case because she is Norwegian, and to be honest, I don't really feel like I want to start a new article about rape in Dubai. But if you start the article, I will watchlist it and try to help out if there are problems. I don't know if it's language skills, Wikipedia skills or other things that hold you back, but with a little help it shouldn't be impossible for you to write at least a short article. If you want to, you can start the article in your sandbox, and I can take a look at it before it is moved to the mainspace. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I will not start it, I said that. Not the time and so on. I would only edit it. Friendly greetings from Flensburg --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Iselilja. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page. Message added 02:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for your contribution. I've taken the liberty of working a little bit on the choice of words, to more accurately reflect what the source has said, but generally it's very good. I also like your contribution in on the Talk page for the ArbCom proposed decision. The most recent motion would set a very bad precedent, for many reasons, but you've spotted the most important: people will be unwilling to become involved in contentious articles, if everyone is probably going to be topic banned, whether they've behaved themselves or not. SilkTork has already been worrying that ArbCom involvement has had a chilling effect, on both editors and admins, in doing anything to make the article better. This would bring the chilling effect to ice storm level. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Belated hello. Thank for your comment. I don't really have a whole lot to say about the case. I was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that even (presumed) good participants in a debate can be topic-banned, so I understand that users directly affected can feel upset (especially the four late-comers). I will probably be more careful about involving myself in contentious articles (allthough I normally get away from dragged-out debates anyway), but it doesn't seem like many other users care. I guess you can't tender to the "Agenda" article either if you are put under pageban. It's an interesting topic; not the easiest article to write, I think. I became aware of it via the DYK nominations. Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Given their attitude and editing history, I don't think issuing further warnings to them is going to do much good: I suggest Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents might be more a more appropriate venue. -- Chronulator (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this has escalated into vandalism. I gave him a final warning, and if he now continues I will report him to WP:AIV. (We can report there after we have given a final warning). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
On further review, this may not be obvious vandalism, so you are probably right that ANI is be the right venue. I may consider reporting him there if he continues, and you may of course report him on your own. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
About accidentally deleting your comment. I got edit-conflicted a couple of times, such a high volume of editing there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me; I hadn't noticed. I put it back now. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Iselilja for cleaning up the article on Andres Soriano Jr. I will remember this in future articles.
Incidentally, the essay mentioned above itself was a copy / paste from the anscor website (which is where I got the information for the anscor wiki article), hence madman bot may have made the note. I have since changed the wordings in the anscor wiki aticle
hence I don't think any copyright issues exist any longer.
Do let me know if you feel otherwise.
Notthebestusername (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Done Responded at user's talk page (diff). Iselilja (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for reviewing my article & making improvements. I really appreciate it. Also reviewing your user page is the first time I had come across Wikipedia Signpost - very informative. Thanks again :)--BuzyBody (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to you for creating the article. Very fine. I added some hyperlinks and categories, as you saw. You can subscribe to the Signpost here if you are interested. Nice way to get to know a bit what is happening around here. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have been expanding the article about the Bodø affair in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål and when it is done I will translate it in full into English. It would be fun to have it on the front page, do you think you could assist me if I did the translation off-line and uploaded it all at once? Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That article absolutely seems to be worthy of a frontpage place. You can of course translate it off-line, but you may also prepare it in your userspace at English Wikipedia if you want to. The nomination must take place within 5 days after the article is expanded in mainspace. I expect to be here in the weeks to come, so I will nominate it when it's ready. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
please roll back all my edits on the article, i promise i will stop reverting back and forth if you do so Ionchari (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
i made mistakes i admit that but please revert my mistakes all together Ionchari (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. We all make mistakes here, so that is no problem. I am not capable of rolling back the moves. I am not sure if it can be done, but I will ask an administrator if it is important to you. Otherwise, I think things will be fine if you just stop moving it. It you think the article should have another name, it would be wise to start a discussion on the article's talk page first. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
i wasnt sure if you were an admin or something so that is why i asked you about the rollback, but yes please request a admin about the rollbacks because you said youreself were not able do to that Ionchari (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I asked admin Tiptoety, so we'll see if you get an answer. Otherwise, you may ask at ANI. But generally, the rule at Wikipedia is that what you have done cannot be undone. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am sorry but I don't know anything about TranslateWiki. To get help, you can write {{helpme}/ (two brackets on both sides) on your userpage, and someone will be hopefully to help you. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
so thanks Iselilja
for your help
be success!!!!
Mogoeilor (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The point was more that Arthur should not be editing that article :-)
That said, if it is a block evading sock then a report should be made not presumed. The edit itself was not objectionable ----SnowdedTALK 14:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The impression I have is that Arthur Rubin is keeping tracking of an IP hopper, so I saw it as a clean-up edit. Some editors/admins are very adament that all edits of banned or block-evading users are removed regardless of their merit. Other than that, I am indifferent to the issuee, so reinsert the edit if you think that is the right thing to do. Glad you're still editing after that troublesome ArbCom case, regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey! :D I'm just a really cheerful guy, but I thank you for letting me talk on your page. Honestly I'm just here to help. Something bugs you? Talk to me and I'll just make it better :)
See Ya! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryMobster (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
You stated "Removing the tag for proposed deletion. He is notable; many Norwegian sources." This is fine, but please add them to the article. Articles must be sourced to verify notability, and sources in other languages are fine. FiddleFaddle 09:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I added a reference to Store norske leksikon where he has an entry, a clar indication of notability. I have expanded the article a bit now. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Awesome :) FiddleFaddle 16:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have left my reply on the Kashmiri Pandit talk page regarding the comments that you recently made there. Would help to get your opinion and feedback on my suggestion there. -Ambar (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't seen that. I'll look at it now. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Stefan Heggelund 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) 20:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
me for having reversed. João bonomo (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you :) Though it was vandalism, just not fully correct according to the policies we follow for titles. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Instead of declaring there's no consensus and reverting, you might want to consider joining us on the talk page. For one thing, you'd be able to explain your reasons. For another, it would show everyone that you looked at the talk page before declaring what the consensus was. Either way, it's a fine idea. MilesMoney (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You may note that I have already commented on the issue on the talk page under the section "Why David Duke and Joseph McCarthy should be listed under influences". There was no consensus for the inclusion; the only thing that has changed now is that you have started a new section. But I will comment again. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ahhhhh Swartpeet (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we are a bit serious here, unfortunately ;/ But you can write about yourself on your userpage (as long as it is not too promotional). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Very appreciated. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, NHRHS2010. Sorry to see that you have bothered with several vandalism on your page. (I frankly don't remember what it was about; I see it has been revdeleted now). Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Iselilja. Just a quick note, and not to belabor this. However, I think that it is not a good appropriate to insert our personal views as to -- in general -- what a person of a certain religion, culture, or ethnicity might believe or do. I didn't intend to say that you made an ad hominem attack but rather that inferring an individual's beliefs from details about the person rather than her/his stated beliefs or observed actions is a form of ad hominem reasoning. I would also question whether either the Institute or any secondary RS would state that vMI is "strongly linked to Jews" as you state. I just wanted to make these points clear but since they don't directly relate to the article I thought this would be the better place to mention it. Best wishes. SPECIFICOtalk 22:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
'Norwegian Pollution Control Authority''' ({{lang-no|Statens forurensningstilsyn}}, SFT) until 2010), was a [[Norway|Norwegian]] [[etat|government agency]] from 1974 to 2013 when it was merged into
Thank you, dear BracketBot. There aren't any chances that you will be able to do these small fixes yourself? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Iselilja/2, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Dreamfigure (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Dreamfigure has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Not quite sure why I got these delights, but thank you. Hope you enjoy editing here. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I get similar results for the web at-large and for Google Scholar. bogdan (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. Sorry, for my mistake. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ikke stress. It's good to be bold. :) bogdan (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Mulțumiri. Btw., I actually have a very early draft about a Romanian church in my userspace now. The only valid source I have is in French which isn't my first language, so I am struggling a bit, but I hope to put it into mainspace soon. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit | c 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Will a DYK nomination delete my GA nomination? Or can both be run at the same time?Arildnordby (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The two nominations can run at the same time. The only thing is that if the article is featured on the main page as DYK before it is accepted as a GA, it can't be nominated again for DYK after it has passed. But the article is ready and you don't expect to do any major improvements that shouldn't matter. The advantage of nominating it within the five days after expansion is that it can get this short visit on the main page (6-8 hours) even if it should fail the GA nomination. I can nominate it for DYK if you don't want to bother with the technical process, but you should suggest a hook (catchy fact that is inlined cited and shorter than 200 characters). Regards,
I'd be grateful if you nominate it. How about this hook?".. but he will be sewn up in a sack and, in this dismal prison, have serpents as his companions.." Should a direct link to the quote be included as well?Arildnordby (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
That hook didn't quite make sense to me without context. It must given meaning on its own, as a single sentence. I will look at this tomorrow (late now). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll have a look at what typical hooks ought to look like, I chose a catchy phrase, but that need not be what is required. Anyways, thanks again!Arildnordby (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
What about the following? "The penalty of parricide, as prescribed by our ancestors, is that the culprit shall be beaten with rods stained with his blood, and then shall be sewed up in a sack with a dog, a cock, a viper, and an ape, and the bag cast into the depth of the sea"Arildnordby (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
"The penalty..is that the culprit shall be beaten with rods..and then shall be sewed up in a sack with a dog, a cock, a viper, and an ape, and the bag cast into the depth of the sea"
That formulation is under 200, at least.Arildnordby (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to say about the hook is that is shall include a mention of the article's name/topic and this mention shall be hyperlinked (that's how the main page readers find the article. For instance one of my DYKS said: Do you know "that at the age of 23, Helge André Njåstad became Norway's youngest mayor?". Going through your article, however, I became somewhat concerned about the sourcing, because you seem to have relatively many primary sources or dated sources (Mommsen and 19 century historians) and not so many references to modern historians's or other modern experts's writing on the topic. I worry this may cause trouble for a DYK nomination because good sources for all paragraphs are adamant to get an article passed at DYK. It might therefore be that the article after all should go through the GA nomination process where these things are sorted out and if necessary fixed before nominating it for DYK. But then remember; it must be nominated for DYK within 5 days after having passed GA. (Also, as an advice: Be aware about Words to Watch; but this is a minor issue). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Mommsen is STILL regarded as a central historian for Roman history. His citation factor is still very high. 13 of the 26 cited books and journals are by 20th century authors; in addition, there are 2 modernized translations, and 7 mere translations that are referenced, without founding judgments upon them. I hardly see your point. They knew their Latin in the 19th century as wellArildnordby (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just went to do the DYK review for Shirley Erena Murray, which I think will pass, but there is something slightly wrong with the hook - says "New Zealand Shirley Erena Murray" - should it be "New Zealand hymn writer", or "New Zealander", or something else - can you have a look and adjust it as you think it should be? Thanks, --Bcp67 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are right; there was something wrong about that phrasing. I am not quite sure what the adjective for people of New Zealand, but I think it is "New Zealand", while the substantive is "a New Zealander". Putting the word "hymn writer" into the text would make the word "hymn" appear three times (if I don't change the rest of the hook). Now, I just left the nationality out; I think we are normallysupposed to include it; but I don't think it's mandatory. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for changing that. Yes, the adjective would be New Zealand - e.g. "New Zealand rugby player" or "New Zealand author" (they don't have anything like "English author"). I've done the review now and ticked it - one minor change on the hook where a pair of brackets have to around the 's to prevent them being bolded with the article title. Hope it appears on the main page soon! --Bcp67 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
And there it is today - fast work! --Bcp67 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for reviewing, Bcp67 :) Iselilja (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I don't think that "dysop" and "dysopping" are real words. I suppose that you mean "de-sysopping". Best wishes. Axl¤[Talk]
13:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Lol, thanks. English surely isn't my first language. Iselilja (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Actually, h-index is easy to find. So I'm really looking more for what "7" means on the index. Would 42 be a better number? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello S. Rich. An h-index of 7 means that the scholar has 7 works that are cited at least 7 times in other scholarly papers, while his 8th most cited work is cited by 7 or fewer; thus he does not have 8 works that are cited 8 times. An h-index of 42 would mean that he has 42 works that are cited at least 42 times; so definitely better;). Now, as our article mentions, a scholar's h-index can vary from database to database, based on how many and which papers they have included; Google scholar tends to give a relatively high index number compared to other bases. You can estimate a person's h-index in google scholar manually, Andrei Shleifer for instance seems to have about 116, while his h-index in RePec is 67, which is currently the highest in the world in that database. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
On 21 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PISA 2012, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Swedish result in the PISA 2012 student survey was called a national crisis by social democratic leader Stefan Löfven? 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! Your submission of Mary Barra 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) 20:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
On 31 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Barra, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mary Barra was named the next CEO of General Motors, which will make her the first female leader of a major automaker? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Barra. 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.
Can I request you add Hebrew Gospel hypothesis to your watchlist? I realise it may be outside your interest area, but seems that you do have a good handle on what constitutes pointy editing so if you have time. If you don't no problem, Happy New Year. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
While I am absolutely sure you have no idea what my position on the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis would be (since I have no idea myself), my dear friend MilesMoney is right that users who intervene in an article after having received notice on their talkpages are very often seen as canvassed (unless notices have been put up on many different talk pages). As it happened, I actually had this article watchlisted (!), maybe because I briefly followed the Ebonites case(?), but I hadn't paid any attention to what was going on. See if you want to up a note on the Christianity noticeboard if you haven't already, allthough I know it's difficult to get people to react, especially since the topic may seem a bit obscure. How you figure things out. And a happy new year! Iselilja (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
