User talk:Jensbn

Welcome!

Hello, Jensbn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Heah ^talk 17:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gill chart

hello Jensbn - a gill chart is a good idea. I know mushrooms pretty well, and think this could be done easily, especially given my familiarity with the field. I actually just today did a basidium drawing - didn't really pay too much attention to the gills there though, so a chart dedicated to gills would require a bit more care. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll start working on it. Debivort 09:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not very familiar with English language mushroom terminology I'll be happy to comment if you like. At a later date, I might contribute to mushroom-related pages. Jens Nielsen 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - I have made a chart along the lines of what we discussed [1]. For now it is in the article mushroom hunting. Parts of it, like the gill attachment portion might be appropriate for other articles, but I am not entirely certain of the articles you had imagined this image going with. Why don't you let me know which portions should go with other articles, and I'll upload appropriately cropped versions. Debivort 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I see the chart is finished. ... The boletoid showing the pores could look more convincing, particularly the pores. Order of appearance could also be changed - subdecurrent right after decurrent, for example.
  - Agreed that the boletoid doesn't look ideal, but I didn't stress too much about those flaws, figuring that making realistic looking pores in illustrator would be quite hard, and since it is a diagram, photorealism needn't be the final goal. The order could be changed if you feel that it is important to categorize them by shared properties. As is, they are sorted alphabetically, which has its own benefits, such as being able to look up a morphological word more quickly. So I could go either way on both of those suggestions. Let me know if you feel strongly about either. Debivort 10:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've improved the graphics a bit, particularly the bolete pores and the chanterelle ridge shadows. [2]. Order is still alphabetic. Debivort 21:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to put it? ... 'mushroom identification' or similar. Eventually, all species pages should include information on gill type and hyperlinked to that diagram (or a small inset of relevant gill type would be highly educative). As I am still new to the mushroom pages, I'll think of where to link to it or put it.
  - I think Mushroom identification would be an excellent page to start. In fact, when I went to place the image, that is the page I searched for first. Maybe a template is in order, or an addition to the mushroom taxoboxes that could have an iconic coding of such information as: gill attachment, spore print color, habitat/substrate, edibility, etc..Debivort 10:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side comment, I sense a strong American POV on many mushroom pages. But not all grow on other continents, and all should be able to benefit from the information. Since I suppose you are north american, I can properly ask you this specific question: does your mushroom book mention anything about that Galerina could possibly be confused with Armillaria and Psilocybe? If so, which species are we talking about? My book about scandinavian mushrooms has no such suggestion, and particularly the galerina vs psilocybe seems very far off. Jens Nielsen 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I don't have a recollection of what my books say about this question, but I know from collecting experience that Galerina autumnalis is a dangerous look alike of Armillaria mellea (distinguishable by white spore print and brown tufts at the top of the cap), as well as Flamulina velutipes - which looks very different in the wild than cultured as enokitake. As for the psilocybes, I agree it seems silly to call them look-alikes, particularly when the main character that people care about in psilocybes (blue staining) is absent from the Galerinas.Debivort 10:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suspect that some drug war freak added that to scare away people from picking Psilocybe...Jens Nielsen 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MycoMorphBox Template

As per our earlier discussion, I've made up a template to illustrate mushroom morphological characters. Please see amanita muscaria for an example, and template:mycomorphbox for the template. I'd appreciate comments and suggestions when you have a moment. Debivort 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He he, we think alike. I had thought exactly the same about the morphobox, only you got to write it first. It's wonderful to see things happening this way, and as before, good job.

Jens Nielsen 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions: each attribute (cap, hymenium, etc.) should have a square box around it and they should all be aligned. To have all look alike, you could consider grayscale thumbnails. The gills illustration is hard to read - consider giving the gills a dark edge for better contrast. The edibility status should be worked at. Consider using thicker lines. My preferred choice would be along what is in my popular mushroom guide: All black/white thumbnails:

edible raw: boletoid drawing OR
not edible raw: boletoid drawing, crossed over

edible cooked: cooking pot drawing OR
not edible cooked: cooking pot drawing, crossed over

poisonous: skull

For each, 1-3 stars can be added over the drawing to indicate degrees of deliciousness or poisonousness. Jens Nielsen 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get to suggest the eating wild mushrooms disclaimer, because as usual you thought of the same thing already.

- I think these are all fine suggestions, except getting the boxes to align might be hard since there are 7 of them curently. Luckily changes will be easy to do since it is a template. That said, I think I am going to focus on putting the box into more pages for now, and then come back and tweak the images when I have time. If you want to revise the thumbnails now, though, please do.Debivort 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox suggestion: there is an entry for 'conservation status'. I have never heard conservation and mushrooms mentioned in same sentence and I wonder if anybody keeps track of that. Can the field be skipped?

- I haven't seen it either, but unlike my template the taxobox one is flexible, and if you leave a field blank it still renders correctly. I need someone more familiar with templates to add that capability to the mycomorphbox. Debivort 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I'm not sure if you knew this or not, but I think a lot of people will reply to a thread on the recipient's talk page, even if the thread originated on theirs. That way the recipient gets a "new messages" alert. For example, I didn't realize you had responded to my comments here for quite a while - until I sporadically checked back at your talk page. Debivort 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was better to keep all context on one page, but I get your point. I will msg on your page next time Jens Nielsen

Re: revert

Thanks for pointing that out, but I'm afraid I don't see any vandalism in the version I reverted to. My version (here, which remains the current version) is identical to Soman's original version here. I reverted to the original version of the image page, so there is no vandalism there. Raven4x4x 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion - Peer review

Invasion has been submitted for peer review, and your help thus far has been valuable so I wanted to invite you take a look and make any suggestions you have on improving the article further. Thanks! Kafziel 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:José Basulto

I'm getting a bit tired of your presumptuousness about my actions. This anon has been following every article I edit and now you show up in several of them posing as a mediator to reach reasoned agreement. Here is his latest example of "reason, argument and evidence" in talk pages. [3]

This TJive idiot hates Fidel and tries to portray him thee the worst way possible, yet he insists that his idol Augusto Pinoshit is a "legitimate president" Here.

You are only serving to exacerbate matters and I do not in the least view you as a neutral observer. Kindly take a step back from overinvolvement in my affairs. --TJive 13:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear: I do not hold your contributions to wikipedia in high regard. As a matter of fact, I regard them as an attempt to restore your preferred POV to the articles. I do not care about your disputes with others, but the accuracy and value of the articles is my concern. Numerous of your edits appear to me to be in ignorance of the subject matter, though I of course may be wrong. Nevertheless, there is no way but to argue the point. I have argued my point and added considerable information to support it, please go ahead and do the same. Jens Nielsen 15:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making clear that this is a dispute with my contributions in particular, rather than incidental areas of editing. It, however, remains disingenuous for you to portray the conflict with the anon as something it is not, which is not peculiar to Basulto or any one article in particular.

You may also expect disregard of similar insincere appeals as this. --TJive 15:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make this personal. Argue your points instead. Jens Nielsen 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you decided to base your recent work on political articles around my edits to Cuba-related (at this stage) topics, and subsequently have now involved yourself in a dishonest way in a conflict between another user and I (about which you claim to "not care"), you are the one making "this" personal. --TJive 15:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had any intention of 'mediating' between you and other users. I have only appealed for you (and others) to argue their cases. Jens Nielsen 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the talk page on Politecnico di Milano Lasah 13:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland geography

Hi Jens - I thought you might like to know that - largely through your recent work - there are now enough greenland geography stubs for there to be a separate {{Greenland-geo-stub}} and Category:Greenland geography stubs. If you know of anyone else working on articles about Greenland, please could you pass the message on (oh, and good work on the Greenland articles! :) Grutness...wha? 07:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) I'm happy to see the Denmark-geo-stub gone. Another thing: Many of the current 'stubs' are for settlements so tiny that I don't see much reason to invite people to expand it - should we perhaps remove the stub listing for those? Jens Nielsen

nice russula additions

Hello Jensbn - Thanks for adding the russula articles. They look good, but I'm sorry you didn't get the 1000000th. I don't have any good resources or revisions in mind right now, but will put them on list for consideration. On another question, some posted a question to the template talk page saying it violates Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. What are your thoughts on this? Debivort 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

emission standards

important topic, but not my specialty...i have some other articles in progress and might get to emissions at some point. thanks for the kind words on my prior work...with your interests you might want to check out the ethanol fuel article...by the way i am visiting denmark in july...are there any environmental issues i should look for...i know you are the world leader in wind energy :) cheers Covalent 05:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of some reports that should be mentioned in the ethanol article, and I'll have a look at the article some time, it's just so long an article that it's a bit daunting to start...As for wind in Denmark, its rapid expansion is something that makes me proud to be a Dane, though unfortunately progress has come to a halt thanks to the government's stopping the feed-in scheme. Have a nice cycling vacation in Denmark :-) Jens Nielsen 14:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I have given you a barnstar for your great work on Greenland articles. I first came across them a few months ago while looking up katabatic winds, and I've read most of what you've done by random chance since. If you can make 80% ice interesting, you get an award. T K E 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'm honoured to receive it. Still much remains to be done, but it's nice to see the topic growing, and a geographical topic is a grateful one. Jens Nielsen 09:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Boy

I appreciate your review of my article. I did in fact read the guideline you cited before I published it. A few things you should consider: 'lobster boy' is not the only thing that, when entered into google, brings up Kofmehl. When writing the article, I used perhaps four or five different searches to assemble the materials from which I obtained facts about his project.

It is documented in the article and elsewhere (see my references) that Kofmehl's project was a phenomenon that attracted international attention. It is my impression that this was largely from the artistic community and academics.

Your point stands that, compared to many people, an article about Kofmehl is of interest to a relatively small group. However, the impetus behind my creating the article was not merely to make an article about some weird art student in Pittsburgh. It was because I had heard about it and wanted to know more; it seems reasonable to me to assume that somebody else may find the article of use, otherwise I would not have written it. And there's no denying it's an interesting story!

It is worth noting that Kofmehl currently lectures at Robert Morris University.

Greyscale 13:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just make sure to add any additional information that supports his notability. Nice article anyway, and a good start at the wikipedia. Jens Nielsen 14:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rigamax

Hi Jensbn. I am a member of the Welcoming Committee which greets new users and helps them get started. I noticed your discussion with Rigamax at the Gunārs Astra article and have made comments there. I decided to help Max with the article. I understand you are a member of the RC Patrol, keep up the good work. However, I am noticing many members of the RC Patrol being to quick to dispute contributions by new members. In your choice of duties, please keep in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thank you. --ElectricEye 09:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get impatient with all the junk articles coming in, but you're right. Don't bite the newcomers. Jens Nielsen 10:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jens. Good job on wikifying articles. ^_^ Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Jensbn, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 08:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biesbosch

Thank you for your comments. With 'saltish sea-arm' I meant a sea-arm which is not connected to rivers, so it's waters are 'pure salty' - that's the Dutch expression. I guess you could remove the word 'saltish' from the article.

I've been working on the rivers in the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta for some time now, perhaps you could check the other articles as well? These are (among others):

IJssel
Oude IJssel
Bijlands Kanaal
Merwede this is a newly created article (related articles: Beneden Merwede, Boven Merwede, Nieuwe Merwede
Minor changes to Dordtsche Kil, Hollands Diep
Oude Maas
Nieuwe Maas
Waal

DaMatriX 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't now that 'sea-arm' is a nonexistent word in English. In some cases it means 'estuary', but I used the latter word in those cases. In other cases I guess the meaning is inlet, although I think that's a too general term. Don't mind my English, it's good but certainly not perfect ;) DaMatriX 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps sea-arm exists, but I'm not aware of it and it's not in my dictionary, or the wikipedia, so it's better to use standard terms. Jens Nielsen 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dutch "Bies" refers to sedges (Cyperaceae, espec. Scirpus), not reeds"

Actually, "bies" does not refer to "sedges" (Scirpus) in general, but more in particular to the genus Schoenoplectus.DaMatriX 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to the Biesbosch Museum in Dordrecht and I had a look at the Biesbosch literature. It refers to "bies" in general, and in particular there used to grow mainly "Zeebies" and "mattenbies", which are Scirpus maritimus and Scirpus lacustris, respectively. There could of course be other species, but I suppose these would be most representative. Jens Nielsen 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Well, if the Biesbosch Museum says so, then it will be true. Scirpus it is then! But you actualy went to the Biesbosch Museum? All the way from Denmark! Was it part of a vacation, or did you come just to see the Biesbosch? I hope you took the boat tour, than you can see the real germs of the Biesbosch. But when you stay at the (re-claimed) solid ground, the creeks are behind dikes and all you see is agriculture. You know, if you've been there you passed a town called Werkendam, perhaps you remember? Well, that's my birthtown! But I'll close this edit because it looks more like chatting than adding something constructive to the subject.DaMatriX 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been there twice in the past month - the last time I took time to check out the stuff we discussed while at the museum. We went with the fluisterboot and the other time canoes, which was great, though I have still only seen the Dordrechtse Biesbosch. I did not come all the way from Denmark - I've been living in Den Haag for the last couple of years :-)

Jens Nielsen 19:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from the anticommunist - and my answers

Do you agree that the students who were suppressed at Tiananmen Square were unpatriotic rabble rousers who got what was coming to them?

no, and I don't see the relevance Jens Nielsen

Do you think Mao and Stalin are regularly slandered and not properly recognized as great leaders and national heroes?

no, and I don't see the relevance Jens Nielsen

Do you believe that human rights concerns are a sham and a front to weaken and humiliate China, and bring it under Western dominance yet again?

Human rights are a cruel joke in China, and yes, I don't think Western governments have any serious concern for human Rights in China, and I don't see the relevance Jens Nielsen

Do you find that internet censorship by the China is a matter of the government protecting people from things they do not need to hear?

I have no opinion, and I am against cencorship, , and I don't see the relevance Jens Nielsen

If not, then why do you seek the counsel and assistance of someone who does, in order to more efficiently pursue the edits of one person? Does it simply not strike you as very important? Or do these matters not concern you at all?

I hope this reaches you in good spirits. 72.65.64.85 09:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply:

For those who don't know him,72.65.64.85 is something of an anticommunist crusader on Wikipedia. All edits of his that I know of are attempts to tweak facts in wikipedia to fit his preferred political views.

72.65.64.85 - I've taken the trouble to answer your questions, and I hope you see I am no Communist. My concern in all the articles i write, whether on biology, geography, or otherwise is factual accuracy. I am concerned that there be no factual misconceptions in Wikipedia. What bothers me about many Cuba-related articles is the black-and-white worldview that Cubans are evil, and therefore anything they do is malicious. Some people go to extraordinaly lengths to make facts conform to that picture. A typical example the change of the verifiable fact that Brothers to the Rescue violated Cuban airspace to they 'entered' Cuban airspace. That distortion removes the (correct) information that the anti-cubans were engaged in illegal activities, a fact not conforming to the black-and-white worldview of Cubans as villains and anti-cubans as heroes. Many cuba-related articles suffer from a heavy anti-cuban bias which for one thing lies in factual misrepresentations. I'm trying to restore the balance and let the facts speak for themselves. That is what NPOV is about.

Jens Nielsen 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't answer my question at all, in fact, as it has nothing to do with Cuba but rather with a particular user who has seen fit to shadow me. You seem content to assist him in this effort, and in fact to pick up where he has left off.

There is no conspiracy. The issue is the quality of your edits. When you stop POV tweaking you won't see anyone stalking you anymore. Jens Nielsen

But do you honestly believe that you are the only one capable of discerning bias, and that it comes from one perspective? Perhaps you need to step back and see the larger picture. --72.65.64.85 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied to be the only one. I don't claim to see all bias, nobody can. But if i see it, I correct it. You've assumed a lot of things about me, most of them quite wrong. Perhaps you need to see the bigger picture? Jens Nielsen

I'm afraid you have several things confused, per your latest comments on Blnguyen's page:

Anons are allowed to edit.
Anons are allowed to revert.
Sockpuppets are allowed.
There is no reason to block me.
Administrators, when protecting a page, are deliberately not supposed to revert.
Protection is not an endorsement of a particular page version.

141.153.121.104 16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

To hear that from a sockpuppet who is reverting aggressively himself...

(cur) (last) 01:16, 11 June 2006 Jensbn m (Revert to revision 57895162 using popups) (cur) (last) 17:56, 10 June 2006 141.153.121.104 (rv) (cur) (last) 17:54, 10 June 2006 Jensbn m (Revert to revision 57894476 using popups) (cur) (last) 17:53, 10 June 2006 141.153.121.104 (and again) (cur) (last) 17:48, 10 June 2006 Jensbn m (Revert to revision 57890593 using popups) (cur) (last) 17:41, 10 June 2006 141.153.121.104 (rv-still no discussion) (cur) (last) 17:20, 10 June 2006 Jensbn (rv) (cur) (last) 03:06, 7 June 2006 65.33.167.138

That is three reverts on June 10 as you see, and quite what you do yourself. Jens Nielsen 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand policy. Three reverts are allowed in any 24 hour period, though revert warring is discouraged. What is not allowed is a fourth within that same period. BTW, they do not have to be over the same material (though that is true in this case), but must merely be reverts of the same article. I encourage you to visit the page on this, so as to clear up misconceptions. Now that you have been properly warned and informed of it, I will not hesitate to report ongoing violations. 72.65.80.34 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address IS NOT a sock-puppet. --Electric Eye (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in bad faith efforts?

Third opinion is intended as a mediation measure, whereas you are using it unilaterally for selective edits. You also persist in rearranging my comments as you see fit. Please refrain from doing this. --TJive 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is trying to get more opinions to break a deadlock a bad faith effort? Besides, you were the one to remind me that 3rd opinion would need to precede arbitration. Jens Nielsen 22:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention third opinions, I mentioned mediation and RFC, not to mention actually attempting discussion and compromise on talk without sanctioned interference. A good faith third opinion request would be that you ask the other user what he thinks about a third opinion and whether he would consider it valuable and/or binding on the dispute in question, whereas you have not even been mentioning them. I have been bending over backwards to be polite about this whole ordeal (while you sit here voicing support for wikistalking), yet it's as if you want to take every possible little step to exacerbate it. --TJive 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that we have a fundamentally different opinion on certain edits, that these have been discussed plenty and to no avail, and for my part I have certainly presented and substantiated my argument with research. Only recently was there any attempt at compromise, and that from another user. I give you that you have very recently offered some (in my opinion) token compromises, and I've accepted some of those. I should not need to remind you how many reverts you have done without starting any discussion at all, and you are in no position to throw mud. Discussion has been all but futile, so it is obvious that the only way to resolve the issues is by bringing in more opinions, or arbitration.Jens Nielsen 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have room to talk here. You have been summarily reverting most of my contributions to the related articles for a long time, and only through a grueling and repetitive, almost nagging process do you ever concede or apparently discover that such things as grammar, spelling, wikilink, and punctuation fixes have nothing to do with broader NPOV and content disputes. The Basulto article is only the latest example (only recently did you concede any issue on the Cuban Five and the fact that your reverts to Brothers to the Rescue dealt with completely innocuous changes aside from the "violations" issue). You rested on the fact that there was a discussion on this "violations" matter on Basulto to ignore the talk page the entire time, despite my efforts to get you to engage, and now all of a sudden you need a "third party" to discuss the bleeding obvious or the fact that the Sandinistas have to do with Basulto and the Contras. Why? You're being obstinate for absolutely no reason, and it's rather tiresome. If you had put in a solid effort to compromise in good faith instead of being so defensive and hostile this would have been settled a long time ago.

You don't like me, or my contributions. Fine. I don't give a damn. But for God's sake try to come to some agreeable terms with this issue and let it be. --TJive 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previously stable version of José Basulto was reverted by your sockpuppets 13 times before you put anything on the talk page, and that was an angry demand that I argue my reverts. Your demands that I come to terms do not impress me. Jens Nielsen 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you just want more of the same edit warring, right? Because you'll be damned if you have to compromise with "the anti-communist". --TJive 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland settlements in the establishments by year categories

Thanks for your comments. The question of whether the small Greenland settlements belong in the appropriate establishments by year category does not seem to me to be determined by whether categorizing them is essential, but rather by whether categorizing them is appropriate. I suggest that many people would dispute that they are of no historical significance and just because people outside of Greenland (like me) have not previously known about them does not mean that they would automatically want them excluded from the answer to the question "what was established in year x". Greenshed 09:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, with no strict criteria for inclusion, in a few years the category will swell up to many thousands of articles for establishments in 1843. How could that possibly be of practical use to anyone? It will take hours to find anything remotely familiar for anyone looking for something important happening in 1843. Jens Nielsen 10:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criterion for inclusion: was the subject of the article estabished in that year? Should the categories become bloated, then we would cross that bridge when we came to it. One way of doing that might be to create subcategories for places, sports clubs, businesses etc. We already have subcategories for educational institutions in the more recent years as there are many such institutions established latterly. Greenshed 18:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

great photo

Hi I have not only used that amazing photo for that but I have used it as the primary article to start Raven Mountain. I always browse through fantastic new photographs and use them to start artciles on wikipedia that I think are worth creating stubs for. Do you have any more? James Janderson 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) James Janderson 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-D It really makes the day for an amateur photographer to hear such praise for one's work! It gives a lot more energy to go on with the work. I've got loads from my trip there, I'll upload some more.

Jens Nielsen 13:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also doing a terrific job with my articles. I prefer now to use illustrations. It opens up the sights of the world to people!! I see you are interested in biology and conservation. My cousin Jonathan Cornelius is a scientist in agroforestry and has a top job in Amazinia conservation in Peru!!!!! What was Greenland like? James Janderson 13:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health issues and the effects of cannabis

In regard to this edit [4] , what is your source on this information? Which compounds our known to cause cancer in cannabis? Without more information to back up this claim this sentence will probably be removed. HighInBC 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should pose no problem, as it is completely uncontroversial that cannabis smoke contains carcinogens. Look at these: [5], [6],

[7],[8], to name just the first ones popping up on a search, but the list goes on. Jens Nielsen 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. HighInBC 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making fire animation

I just wanted to say that i've actually never seen an animation used as an image on wikipedia before, and I think the one you put up on Making fire is fantastic! way to go! -Shaggorama 04:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I love it too :-D. Full credits, however, go to Plenz who created it. I suggest you drop him a note.Jens Nielsen 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo

Quo are a British band, here in Britain when referring to a team, or a band, we say for example "Arsenal are the best team" NOT "Arsenal is the best team" . Hence, no-one in Britain would ever ever ever say "Status Quo is a British Rock band" Its "Status Quo ARE.." All you have to do is check British papers, websites etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheMongoose (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

My mistake, and thanks for the English lesson. Jens Nielsen 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA

Jens, I appriciate you looking over my new page that I created; I want to be sure that the work I am putting on Wikipedia is up to par. However, I changed the "nonprofit" statement back, and cited a page from JAMA's official website. I'm new here on Wikipedia, and am not used to citing things yet. If it is still a problem, it's no big deal, just change it back. I just wanted to provide as much info as possible. VonShroom 17:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't think the term nonprofit fits an industry association very well. It may well not be making profit from its activities, but the whole nature of the association is to (indirectly) increase the profits of its members. If you read the article about nonprofit, you'll see that it's generally used for non-commercial organizations. Calling JAMA a nonprofit organization seems to me a euphemism disguising its true nature, something many organizations do when you see their own descriptions of what they consider themselves.

Jens Nielsen 08:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Five

I was reading your stuff in the discussion of 'Cuban Five' and I thought it was way better than what is currently on the page. I think you should re-start the 'editing war' you mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdantaylor (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re-working the article has long been on my to do list. The world outside of wikipedia has claimed a lot of my time recently, so I have not got around to it. It's still on my list, though. Jens Nielsen 13:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Environment Barnstar

I have created a barnstar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sinbad edit log

Hello, Jensbn. I was requested to delete those edits because of the growing problem of people seeing the links and following them; now, a link to the original incorrect entry will produce an error page. I understand your reasons for restoring the edits, though. What I can (try to) do is restore those edits to another page, perhaps in Wikipedia namespace. I'm pretty sure I can do this with a bit of moving, though I'm still in the middle of making sure it works with tests in my sandbox. Would this be acceptable to you? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is what I can do, after trying it out on my sandbox: I can, through a series of moves, deletions, and undeletions, move the 9 deleted versions to a new page, something like Talk:Sinbad (actor)/deleted. This way, people following the link to the incorrect version of the article would still get an error message, while the deleted edits would be available on a subpage of the talk page. The only drawback to this is that a diff would not be possible for the very first edit and the very last edit, since there would be nothing to compare it to, but the actual page version could still be referenced. I'm going to go ahead and do so now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, go ahead and do it and make sure the information becomes clearly visible on the talk page in the appropriate section. Jens Nielsen 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so now. Thanks again. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of carbon offset providers

An editor has nominated List of carbon offset providers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of carbon offset providers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning IJsbrand

Hello to yaou,

the article was deleted following the procedure laid down here; as you contested it prodding now, I've restored the article. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers to the rescue

The article Brothers to the rescue, which you made substantial edits to has been judged a good article by peer review. I have no idea who reviewed it by the way. You are welcome to return to improve the article for featured status.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to hear that it passed :-). No other article has cost me as much blood, sweat and tears as that one. Thanks for inviting me to try to get it to FA status. However, given that it is already undoubtedly the best article on the web on this subject and that the subject is not terribly important, I think I'll leave it as it is. Jens Nielsen 09:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Barnstar

I have removed the barnstar on your talk page so that I can keep track of who received this barnstar. OhanaUnited 15:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

While assessing Environment-related articles, I found European Union Emission Trading Scheme to be very interesting, especially all important stats are referenced. Keep up the good work. P.S. I'm planning to award that barnstar to you once it is approved. OhanaUnited 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, as soon as my work burden eases, I'll get to it. Jens Nielsen 11:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Reindeer hunting in Greenland

I have finally gone public with my new article:

Reindeer hunting in Greenland

-- Fyslee/talk 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biesbosch (once again)

Hello, you remember me? We worked together on the Biesbosch article some time ago. I've been expanding the article since, perhaps you would like to check the article on spelling and grammar? Since your proficiency in English is better than that of me. DaMatriX 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new task force that could use your help and expertise!

Hi Jensbn, I admire your edits and wanted to draw your attention to a new task force a few editors are developing with the goal of making sure environmental records of corporations and politicians are accurately and efficiently represented in relevant entries. Given your outstanding environmental edits, I thought I'd let you know about the project. If you think it's a good idea, please consider chiming in on the discussion page. We hope to have a task force page up soon and of course would love to have you on board! Regardless, keep up the great work.Benzocane 04:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd be happy to join. Real life is keeping me busy these days, but I hope to be of help once in a while.Jens Nielsen 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The task force is up and running!

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Cyrusc 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Christopher Hohn

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Christopher Hohn, by Gilliam (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Christopher Hohn seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Christopher Hohn, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Development Mechanism

No hard feelings. I'm sorry too if I have been impolite at some point in our CDM conversation. I have enabled wiki email and look forward to the information you want to send along. As for the content, I still think we may be at a standstill. I understand and agree that CDM doesn't and isn't intended to reduce emissions below what would happen under Kyoto if there were no CDM. That said, I believe that there is environmental benefit to be gained from making the same reductions at lower cost, particularly because many outdates technologies in use in developing nations need to be updated and we can all hope to leapfrom intermediate steps. I'm not alone in that hope, it's why the CDM exists, and we really can't prove it either way. Perhaps we can edit our way to some language that neither of us feels misstates the environmental benefits of the CDM or lack thereof. Envirocorrector 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ogunlade Davidson

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

nn person

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. Oo7565 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jensbn! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 290 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Ogunlade Davidson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bert Metz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of HSEQ

The article HSEQ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A disambiguation page that only disambiguates one thing and has no blue links.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Face Foundation

The article Face Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Defunct organization; only reference appears to be a deadlink; no clear reason to retain

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CE Delft

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CE Delft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Tren

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Richard Tren requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 7 January 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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Essent logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Essent logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wim Turkenburg

The article Wim Turkenburg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Snowycats (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:CDM CERs distribution by project type.png

The file File:CDM CERs distribution by project type.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fairfood International

The article Fairfood International has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly advertising, but also no independent, reliable sources provided. I couldn't find enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dansk tilbagetrækning fra EU / Danish withdrawal from the European Union

Can you support this page https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_tilbagetr%C3%A6kning_fra_EU ? Because after some time it could be deleted "Maskinoversættelse og/eller tvivlsomt indhold" "Denne side virker ikke som en encyklopædisk artikel". Wname1 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]