User talk:Kjet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Silja Line

In the article List of ferry operators you fixed my edit of Silja's current operating routes. I know that Silja's ferries only operate between FIN-SWE but it's fast vessels of SuperSeaCat, that is under Silja Line, operate between Tallinn and Helsinki. So I didn't really understand if in the brackets are the ferry operating routes or the company operating routes. Anyway, I'm not gonna argue, as I see that you are a lot smarter than me in this subject and I let you decide:).

The SuperSeaCats have been a separate company, with no relation to Silja, since last year. So currently Silja only operate between Finland and Sweden. - Kjet 08:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Tuohon Tallinkin controversyyn liittyen. Ahdistelu"tiedot" ovat keltaisenlehdistön "tietoja". Asiahan oli poliisitutkinnassa. Silminnäkijöitä tai vaateita kenenkään suunnalta ei löytynyt. Asia kannattaisi minusta mainita myös Wikipediassa. Wikipedian pitäisi olla parempi media kuin vaikkapa Iltasanomat.

Siitä vaan editoimaan sitten. Tou controversy-osio ei itseasiassa ole minun kirjoittamani enkä ole siihen hirveästi viitsinyt sekaantua. - Kjet 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. En lukenut historya tarpeeksi pitkälle joten oletin väärin. Kiitoksia joka tapauksessa käsittämättömän isosta laivatietoudesta. On mielenkiintoista lukea laivoista joilla matkustan monta kertaa kuussa. Tuupola

Pääasiallinen kiitos kuuluu Joni Huopanan loistavalle taustatyölle, pääosa tiedoista on hänen suomenkielisestä Tallink-historiastaan (jonka löysin FCBS-forumin kautta. Kannattaa käydä jos laivat kiinnostaa enemmänkin). - Kjet 12:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gabriella

Moi.

Olit kirjoittanut noista luodinreiistä M/S Gabriellassa. Kiinnostaisi tietää missä ne on tarkalleen. Olen kuullut paljon tarinoita niistä, mutta ei kukaan tunnu tietävän missä ne on. Olisiko sulla tietoa?

--Nikolai

nikolai@diskis.net

Ships and ship companies

Moi, just dropping by to say good work on all ship related articles :) I'll try to help out on them when I have time. bbx 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you approve of them ;) And apologies on all the typos and not using references properly... Kjet 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) This is a wiki so there is no need to be afraid of making mistakes or typos. Sooner or later someone is coming around to fix them. In my opinion the most important work is made by those who start articles. bbx 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Crash and Burn

Sorry mate, I misunderstood your purpose with capitalising, not realsing you did it primarily to distinguish from the other Crash and Burn, which I'd never heard of. However the standard is lower case no matter how it is on the actual cover (some covers have the title all in capitals and we still user sentence case in WP). In this case the thing to do is call it Crash and Burn (John Foxx album), similar to The Garden (John Foxx album). Cheers, Ian Rose 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, that sounds prudent. Actually I decided to capitalise the A because the Foxx/Gordon album is written so on the Crash and Burn (disambiguation) page. Or rather it was, I'm fixing it now to follow the correct format.

However, is Crash and Burn (John Foxx album) really the coprrect way to refer t oan album that isn't Foxx's solo album? Just a thought? - Kjet 09:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're correct, it'd have to be (Foxx/Gordon album) or something similar - even I'm getting confused by all his solo and collaborative output... Cheers, Ian Rose 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about just Crash and Burn (album), as the other Crash and Burn is not an album but a single? In a similar vein as QE2 (album), which is called that and not QE2 (Mike Oldfield album). And yeah, John's collaborations can definately get confusing. — Kjet 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I really haven't been using my eyes today (pretty busy with Real Life, admittedly) and appreciate your patience - once again I agree, Crash and Burn (album)'s quite sufficient. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Crash and Burn (album) it is then. Cheers, Kjet 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RCI Fan link.

I fixed the links, but now they are being removed by a spambot, half of the RCI related pages had that link for over a year, now they are being removed. I left an extra R in the original link, and had been fixing that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NWLB (talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

DYK nomination

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, M/S Nordlandia, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 18 where you can improve it if you see fit. MeegsC | Talk 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I so didn't expect that. Kjet 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gary Numan albums

Hi mate, noticed you've put some recently-created Numan articles on your to-do list. The chap who's made them is very enthusiastic but unencyclopedic and fannish in his contributions, as I've put to him on his talk page, without acknowledgment. I'm in the middle of a bunch of interconnected RAAF articles at the moment so can't help out right now but if you're able to face putting them in some sort of toned-down, standard order I'll chip in when I can with references and so on. BTW, one of his Numan articles is Machine Trilogy, which I am seriously thinking of proposing for deletion or merge with the main Numan article and/or the relevant album articles - it's not a term used in the wider music community like Bowie's Berlin Trilogy, and doesn't need its own article - but be interested in your opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you had given the guy some criticism on his talk page (I had a bit of a look-around too what kind of a chap he is before giving The Fury (album) a complete overhaul). Hopefully I'll have enough time and energy to tackle the other Numan articles he's done, but I can't promise I'll get anything do quickly either. Machine Trilogy should definately be deleted, it's not a widely used term as you say (actually I don't think I've seen it used anywhere before) and there's really no need for any additional articles asides from the album articles themselves. Relatedly, he's using the term "Experimental Trilogy" for Dance, I, Assassin and Warriors. I'm not sure if such a term should be used at all. -- Kjet 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, even Numan never used the term "machine trilogy" - he only mentioned "the 'machine' phase" of his career once or twice. Funnily enough I think I contributed to this inadvertently by using the expression "'machine' trilogy" (only "machine" in quotes, mind, since that was Numan's own expression) in the Telekon article I created way back. Talk about creating a monster! And "experimental trilogy" - another bit of WP:OR on this fellow's part. As far as overhauling goes, we'll just do our best when we can, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose 10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shame opn you for introducing the term to him. ^_~ Let's just hope he doesn't start referring to the "sampling trilogy" (Berserker through Strange Charm), "commercial trilogy" (Metal Rhythm through Machine + Soul) and "drum-and-bass quadlogy" (you get the idea). I might be able to give Berserker a go in the next few days, if for no other reason then just because it's one of my favourites. I could also see about reading through the articles and deleting all downright incorrect stuff (there was a fair bit in The Fury at least) in the near future but I guess any more major work will have to wait. Cheers, Kjet 12:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! And a Beserker fan too, eh? My congrats on your good taste - also one of mine. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing missing is you telling me that we post on the same David Bowie message board. Kjet 17:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine Trilogy is listed now. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta very much, I put in my support from the deletion. -- Kjet 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Finnlines

Translatet the Star Class Ferries to German, kiitos hyvää päivää Finnfan1 --80.144.106.159 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I noticed you did. Good work. -- Kjet 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC) -- Thank you -- finnfan1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.196.212.169 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

NordöLink sent M/S Finnpartner to Sweden - Germany traffic at the end of July. I ve seen her on Travemünde Webcam today. C U: Finnfan1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.68.123 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ThePleasuresofElectricity.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ThePleasuresofElectricity.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate, was just passing and added a more comprehensive FUR to this one. The only thing you might want to add if you recall it is the source of the picture (e.g. Amazon or wherever). Cheers, Ian Rose 07:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've no recollection on where I got the picture from, it was one of the very first pictures I uploaded that weren't photoes I had taken myself so I didn't know how to do it properly. And thanks for updating the FUR. -- Kjet 09:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Mix

Yes, I own the US version of The Mix as well. However, the Wiki guidelines suggest listing the label from the country of the group's origin, which is EMI. So I'm going to change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrokinesis (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware about that - this could have been avoided if you had pointed out the guideline in one of your edit summaries... -- Kjet 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MV Estonia

Thanks for making those changes to "the rescue effort" Kjet. It would have taken another month if I'd had to do that. JRPG 20:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's nice to see well-reseacrched improvement to that part of the article, so thank you as well. Also, I hope you don't mind my changing some of the formatting to the Finnish/Swedish standard (only one space after full stop and MV to M/S - the latter especially I felt was justified as the Finnbirch was a Sweden-flagged ship operated by a Finnish company, and the Finnish convention is already used in other parts of the article). -- Kjet 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kjet. I see the dreaded references box is back. I've just made some changes and I hope I'm not the person responsible. I'm happy to try and fix the article/get rid of the box but are you asking for consistency in putting the references at the end or something else? I was hoping to finish JAN HEWELIUSZ this weekend.

JRPG 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

List of ship decommissionings in 1967

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of ship decommissionings in 1967, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thewordbook.com/List_of_ship_decommissionings_in_1967. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BowieSinglesCollectionCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BowieSinglesCollectionCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Caribbean International link suggestion.

I got a response back from one editor of the page, who thought adding my site might have merit. He suggested asking other page editors to consider the site and see if a link can/should be added. I'm noticing that there is already a link to a site described as an "independent" resource on RCI, and with due respect to that sites owner, it is a fraction of the resource and project I am working on myself. The community is growing in activity, provides information not seen elsewhere on the internet. Not that it is the intent of Wikipedia to become a large-scale links page, but I would argue RoyalCaribbeanFan.com warrants a link given established standards already on display.

The specific site link is www.RoyalCaribbeanFan.com.

I'd appreciate a few more people looking into it, and possibly acting on adding the link if it does have the merit it would seem to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NWLB (talk • contribs) 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Category catch (Olivia and R Family)

Thank you for catching that, I'll try to remember that distinction. Benjiboi 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The line between a cruise line and a travel agency is sometimes vague but these are quite clear cases. Interesting articles though, good work on 'em. -- Kjet 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, they aren't travel agents either but I guess specialty cruise organizers; they take over an entire cruiseship for their passengers and events. Many LGBT companies do this on a much smaller level but maybe a dozen worldwide regularly have larger ships booked as such. Benjiboi 09:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Pride of America

Wondering why you reverted the infobox on the Pride of America page? I changed it back to how it was originally. If there's some specified format that I'm missing, let me know. --OneCyclone (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The point was the bolding of the ship name above the infobox (which you entirely removed in the newest version). I've no particular preference of in this matter, but if the ship name is displayed there I think it should be featured more prominently than the picture caption (which in most ship infoboxes is not bolded in my experience). And for the record, the official standard infobox is the one available at Template:Infobox Ship Example, and to my understanding it's preferrable that it should be used in all ship articles instead of a customised infobox. -- Kjet (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The edits made to the infobox during the past few days, including yours, offered no explanation for the changes. Since we're all supposed to dialogue with each other to avoid disputes, that's why I asked. It doesn't appear, other than the small change you made, that you were using the official standard infobox, Template:Infobox Ship Example, but if you want to start updating the cruise ship pages to bring them all into full compliance with that format, by all means go for it. I see you're already a member of WikiProject Ships, which is great, so thank you for all of your other contributions. --OneCyclone (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad you took the time to immidiately ask when this happened, probably saved trouble. And indeed, I wasn't upgrading the infobox of that article as it's a pretty big job... I am slowly upgrading various ship articles, but it's such a mind-numbing job that I'm not progressing very fast. -- Kjet (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finnlines_Logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Finnlines_Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge ?

Hi Kjet, how are you ? I have been thinking about the articles on the Princess of Norway /Spirit of Tasmania and wether or not they should be merged of kept sperate? The same applies the Val de Lorie / king of Scandinavia which was once put up for merging but was highly opposed. So I was just wondering what your thoughts on this matter are ? Because I see you intend to do an article on the Princess one day. Personally I am a little of two minds as there are pros and cons to each but I guess if every ship had an article for each of it’s names there would be 1000s of articles on just the well know ships. But then on the other hand some ship have had very colourful lives under one name but quite band and short life under anther. So what do you think about it all ? Regards Mbruce1 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm all for merging the articles you mentioned. And they should in my opinion be kept under the current name, unless a previous name is more notable for some reason (which is also the WP:SHIPS guideline on this). This is of course problematic, as the current name of a recently renamed vessels is always bound to be less notable than (one of the) earlies one(s). Of the ships we're talking about here in particular, I think Princess of Norway / Spirit of Tasmania should be under the name Princess of Norway, and Val de Loire / King of Scandinavia under King of Scandinavia. In both casea I don't feel the earlier name is notable enough to warrant keeping the article under that name. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kjet, Well I guess at the end of the day I agree with you but it’s not that easy (at least not with the Val) just take a look on its talk page! [1] But I guess if that’s what the guide lines say they can’t really argue. On the Spirit / Princess situation I think keep it how it is just for now and once some more info etc is added we may purpose a merge and if there’s no opposition go ahead.

Just anther thing I would like you opinion on, and thats the page about Spirit of Tasmania (the one about the four ships) I am thinking that one day, once sperate articles for each of the ships are made it should be merged with TT-Line Pty. Ltd. in part and a disambiguation page for the four ships as Spirit of Tasmania. as Spirit of Tasamia is only a trading name of TT-Line Pty. Ltd. not the company name. The article was originaly only for M/S Spirit of Tasmania and once TT-Line got more ships others just added more ships which should have had separate articles in the first place! Regards - Mbruce1 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2