User talk:Jørgen88

Welcome!

Hello, Jørgen88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Selva Marine

A tag has been placed on Selva Marine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Paste ^Talk 10:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your question on my talk page. Thank you. Paste ^Talk 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry for the much belated reply; the article didn't meet the notability criteria, and the enterprise isnt't likely to be notable in a wiki sense. You may the contest the deltion at deletion review. Lectonar (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group 9

Please stop adding incorrect non-specific information to this article. It is not certain that the top two teams will go to the World Cup, as the second-placed team may get knocked out in the play-off round. Furthermore, the situation is the same for all nine qualifying groups in the UEFA region, and is mentioned at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA), so why are you specifically targeting Group 9? – Pee Jay 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not targeting anything, I have my interests in Group 9 because my country is in that group. I read the article, and missed any information about how many teams would go on to the next stage, whether that would be to the play-off round or directly to the World Cup. And only the two top teams gets to go on, the rest is out. THATS the information I want to put up there. Jørgen88 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to know the format of the UEFA region qualifiers, they should check 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). Please stop adding unnecessary statements to the Group 9 article. – Pee Jay 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its one line of helpful information, why cant you just understand that it improves the article? Theres no need to remove this information. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

That is Highly incorrect, ATi was Bought by AMD in 2006. Soon after, ATi was Renamed "AMD Graphics Product Division" Internally (Not Externally, But I put it in the page anyway)

The only thing AMD changed was the Brand name for GPUs, it does NOT indicate however that AMD is the one making the GPUs. AMD was a CPU Company before, and they Are a CPU Company now.

ATi still Exists, and is the one making the GPUs. Albeit the GPUs they make are now Branded "AMD"

Don't be fooled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatness3 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems understanding how in the world you make that assumption. How can ATI still exist, if when all of the engineers, designers and blueprints have been bought by AMD, is under AMD's ownership, is even at AMD's facilities, is branded as AMD, is sold as AMD, and is now a part of the AMD Fusion (which is CPU+GPU)..? Oh BTW, AMD is not a CPU or GPU "maker", they are a semiconductor company, which is all technology related to that, including both CPU and GPU's. Jørgen88 (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats like saying: "Well, Since Naughty Dog and Guerrilla Games were bought by Sony. Sony Must now be making Uncharted and Killzone"

Thats not the case, since you DO see the "Naughty dog" and "Guerrilla Games" Logo, Don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatness3 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a Company is Bought by Another company does not mean that, That company ceases to Exist and its That Company that now makes the Products.

AMD hasn't made a GPU prior to the acquisition of ATi. But Don't take THAT statement the wrong way, ATi is still the one making the GPUs, And always will be.

Also, ATi is still located where they have always been located: Markham, Ontario, Canada. And It doesn't matter what Its sold as, As I've said: AMD only changed the "Name" that you see on the GPU package, It does not mean that AMD is the one making the GPUs.

Its up to every company to chose their way of buying a company, that can be to acquire its technology and make it defunct, like AMD did with ATI, or a company can buy it and let that bought company continue with its old name, staff, brands, etc. ATI does no longer exist, and AMD is now the only ones making AMD Radeon. Its not like when Ford bough Volvo back in the days, Volvo was still Volvo. But Ford could if they wanted to, do as AMD, and close down Volvo and continue making Volvo cars but with another name, like Ford Swede or whatever. Jørgen88 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, There is no Evidence that AMD closed down ATi. If they did, there would be news about it: But there isn't.

ATi Still lives, It's just now under ownership of AMD.

And as I've said: The "Brand Name" is just what you see on the Cover of a GPU, It does not mean that AMD is the one making the GPUs.

Thats Also like saying: "Well I see the Nintendo Logo on my Wii game, It must mean that Nintendo made the game!" Though, in Reality it's a Wii game made by a Different Company and is only Liscened by Nintendo.

Let me try to put it in another way. If you changed your name, wouldn't it be strange if someone called you by your old name? Just face it. ATI was bought by AMD, AMD changes the name from ATI to AMD, AMD owns all the stuff it bought, I.E. its AMD. Can't get any clearer than that. I haven't met anyone who thinks thats not reality, until you came along. Jørgen88 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to talk to him/her as he/she does not want to accept the reality. But I assume this user will soon be back with a new username and may leave additional comments here. --Denniss (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Im not that experienced with Wikipedia, so I don't know how to deal with this kind of stuff, but I just hope enough people will try to detect when this guy comes around with a new IP/user and starts to edit... Jørgen88 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed he's back as thegreatness 4 as he tried to remove his geolocation from my post above. --Denniss (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was Merely

I was Merely Trying to fix the Large Mistakes both of you have made

1:AMD did not Close down ATi Technologies, If they had there would be news About it. 2:AMD Was and still is just a CPU company ( 3:AMD only "Slapped" their Logo on GPUs, It does not mean that they are the ones making the GPUs (Like how you see the Nintendo Logo on a Wii game, But It does not mean that Nintendo made the game, They only Liscensed it).

you were giving The CPU company "AMD" All the Credit and Not to the Real GPU makers: ATi Technologies.

My Edits are Valid. since it showcases that, Indeed, AMD is now in Ownership of ATi. But it is ATi Still making the GPUs. I've Also added in the Detail of "ATi is known Internally as AMD Graphics Products Group"

...*Sigh*, If This doesn't get to you, Then how about this: You allow me to Erase my Geolocation, and I'll Leave the Pages alone. That is if You like my Reasoning here.

I'll Edit the Pages one Last time, Revert them If you like: But look at What I have done closely, You may like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatness5 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a tit for tat, its about guidelines, that you have to follow to make your edits valid. You should give at least ONE reliable source as to why you make the edits you make. As far as I have researched, I find hardly any sources that imply your opinion. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Sources, Just Facts and perhaps some Common Sense.

There was Never any news that AMD closed down ATi, And as I've said, It dosent matter if the "AMD" Logo is on the GPUs. AMD just payed to have it on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatness5 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image descriptions.

Hello, could you please stop removing image descriptions as you did with GTA V and Assassin's Creed 3. You may be able to see the cover, but people who are blind or have eyesight problems may not. Users with sight problems may rely on screen reader software to read the page to them, a description of what the image is, is of far more use to them than "GTA V Cover". WP:ACCESS is not just about people with disabilities though, its about making Wikipedia accessible and more informative for all. - X201 (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After all those years I've been an editor at Wikipedia, you're the first to mention disabilities as an excuse for an edit. Imagine if all images on WP had a long description? There would be a total mess. Theres no need to describe every image detail present, but to give a fair amount of information about the object is fine. The best thing to do, is to have no description at all, to simplify the article. Please see Help:Infobox_picture#Using_three_or_four_parameters where it is described how to handle captions under infobox images. Notice how the example doesn't go into detail about Wales's clothes or facial expression, but gives ONLY the essential information. Also see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions where I quote: "1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious."... also, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images and i quote: "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." I will revert your edits, return here for discussion before reverting again. Jørgen88 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the MOS guideline on caption length. And accept the changes.

I must add though, that I feel offended by your opening sentence accusing me of using disability as an excuse. We have all made edits to Wikipedia where we feel we are doing things because we believe them to be the correct course of action, only to find at a later date that we were operating from a wrong viewpoint. - X201 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention to offend anyone, Its just that I've had so many discussions like this before and it's tiring. Cheers. Jørgen88 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

You are mis-reading WP:MOSIMAGES/WP:CAP. Yes, "succinct" is a term there, but at the same time, captions should be informative, and there's no size or length metric that is applied to succinct, just that the caption is such. Being able to identify lead characters in a work via their appearance in cover art through a caption is a standard method throughout WP, and keeps the caption succinct. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cant add any information that you see fit on image captions. For example, if I have a picture of a ship, I write down the name and maybe type of the ship. I dont add color, what propeller its using, what length it is, what the name of the captain is etc. You add the most basic facts. The name and description of the protagonist of a game is considered less useful and therefor shouldn't be added. I'll revert, and please dont start a baseless edit war.

Please note the main caption guidelines regarding this edit dispite:

Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're misread it. Look at the examples they give. It is still succinct to say "this cover shows the game's protagonist(s)" and it helps the reader while on that page. It would not be succinct, in the case of Bioshock Infinite, to say "the North American cover, which shows the game's male protagonstist in a leather vest and turn of the century grab in front of the game's logo and a burning flag, looking smug and a with a weapon slung on his shoulder." --MASEM (t) 17:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a section to clarify this on WT:Manual of Style/Captions. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to display the protagonist or any other character from a game, you can add an image and a caption further down in the article, with the protagonist's name under the image as a caption, and have the image next to the section that describes the charter(s) in the article. No need to violate WPMoS. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove captions from articles while the RFC is still going (and without it having an obvious concensus) that will be considered edit warring even if it doesn't fall under 3RR, and I will report you to ANI. The captions have been there and should be considered the status quo until a change by the RFC is determined. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC does not have any weight until an agreement on change of guidelines has been implemented. Until then, the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia stands. And they clearly state how captions in the infobox should be. I will revert your actions according to these guidelines that User talk:Hahnchen removed, which should not be removed until a new agreement is reached. Jørgen88 (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Adam Kotsko. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jørgen88, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Keri (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Adam Kotsko shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: ). Thank you. Keri (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Adam Kotsko, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Keri (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keri (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you two weeks due to the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jørgen88. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've made an obvious mistake. You can run the IP with my user-IP, and they'll most likely be different. To me, this looks like yet another attempt to block me from making changes to the Kotsko article, which is clearly against the rules. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may follow the advice at WP:APPEAL if you choose. That the IPs match isn't at issue, no one claimed the IPs match and we generally don't match IPs to users anyway. I generally use 3 different IP addresses per day at Wikipedia, so again, the address is irrelevant. The finding is that there was one HUMAN using two different logins. That is what makes it socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you prove that? Because I've only used on login with one IP, so obviously this verification system is flawed or you just made a mistake. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't need to prove it, just demonstrate it is considerably more likely than not, which the diffs in the investigation did. I haven't the time to discuss in full detail that which you could simply read, ie: WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. There are a number of other policy pages, but that is a good start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jørgen88, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Keri (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block from two weeks to three weeks as you continue to evade your block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem mate, I'm going on vacation to Spain for a few weeks soon so see you over at Talk:Adam_Kotsko later. Jørgen88 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing. this comment] about President Obama is unacceptable. Please don't post comments like this again. - Mr X 16:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef

If you have "88" at the end of your username, you're going to be scrutinized. if you make racist comments and claim they're jokes, you're going to be scrutinized. When you do both, you get blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I can't control other peoples thoughts so you can believe what you want :-)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jørgen88. 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)[reply]