Kjetil r

I've added a patent nonsense tag to the article Brin, marking it for speedy deletion by administrators. If you disagree with this, you may remove the tag, but I will then nominate it for a deletion vote under the deletion policy. Please avoid adding non-encyclopedic articles to Wikipedia in the future. --MikeJ9919 30 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)

• Sorry...just reread the speedy delete guidelines. As you created the article, you may not remove the tag, though feel free to put it up for VfD, in which case I will remove the tag.--MikeJ9919 30 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Hi Kjetil r, just a minor point on categories: if you add someone to Category:Norwegian footballers, you do not need ot add them to Category:Norwegian sportspeople or Category:Norwegian people, because once you put them to the footballers category, it already is in the other two because of the hierarchy. This is done to avoid over-categorization and categories with too many articles, which would become useless. --Dr31 4 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

• I see, thank you for clarifying this. --kjetil_r July 5, 2005 01:38 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the Kongsvinger photo on Commons.

 

Is there a way to directly upload a file from the Norwegian sites to Commons? It would make it much easier than my current patch - to download & upload again. And it would keep a cleaner trail of origin as well.

Thanks - Williamborg 00:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (I'll watch your page, so replies here, if easier for you, are fine).Reply

Unfortunately I do not know of an easy way to move files from the Norwegian sites to Commons. Such a tool would save much time, as I move a lot of images from the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia to Commons. kjetil_r 02:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate your doing so. Williamborg

It took 3 1/2 months before anyone reacted. Couldn't you at least BJAODN it? Eixo 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:So_some_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_walk_into_a_bar....#From_Sven_O._Høiby. kjetil_r 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great, my Santa-SvenO will now live forever! Eixo 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Thanks for explaining the confusing situation. In light of this, I have changed back the links on the Commons to Norsk (bokmål) and Norsk (nynorsk). From what I've read about Riksmål, I'm not going to put that back for now, unless you can convince me again :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that any one language dialect writing system is superior. I hope it's better this way. —UED77 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

i would like to know why you have listed my photograph of Steven Gerrard for deletion?! My best mate took that photo standing next to me in the crowd with a zoom lens. It is perfectly legal in every possible way. Please reverse this stupid decision.

thankyou, Alii h 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will answer in your user_talk. kjetil_r 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You sir are a jobsworth idiot. The big version is licensed one way. The small version is edited and licensed another way. Both licenses are within the ethos of "sharing". Both are valid in the eyes of the author.Alii h 21:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, Mr. Alii h, are you always so unfriendly? If the license used here at Wikipedia is ok in the eyes of the author, all right, then the image should noe be deleted. It would have been easier if you said so at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 10 instead of calling me an idiot here.

I can see that you have uploaded many images of Liverpool players, and this problem applies to all of them. The page here at Wikipedia says one license, but the link to flickr says something different. You should specify that these images are licensed under a different license at Wikipedia, so that other contributors do not think they are nc-only and then listing them for deletion. kjetil_r 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am unfriendly because I'm annoyed that the Peter Crouch photo was deleted without any notification. I hadn't saved a copy of the edit, and still haven't gotten around to redoing it. If you had honestly doubted the author's consent you could have mailed him via Flickr. Personally I think you just like deleting photos that people have put time and effort into uploading. I will at least credit you with notifying me this time. aLii 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

p.s. there are MANY photos of footballers that are MUCH more deserving of deletion. I suggest that in future you concentrate your efforts on the multitude that are stolen from comercial websites rather than photos taken by the public, but using two slightly non-matching licenses on different sites aLii 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you are right, maybe I should have mailed the author. I often do so in case of doubt, but for some reason I did not this time.

I am not sure why you think this is "anti-Liverpool vandalism", I have (of course) no interest in removing content from Wikipedia unless the content is a copyright violation.

If this licensing issue is solved, I will copy the images to the Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used in other Wikipedias. They are nice images, your friend is a very good photographer.

The uploader should according to the rules of Wikipedia always be notified when an image is considered for deletion. You should tell this to the person whom deleted it, beeing an admin he should know this. kjetil_r 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is getting late, but tomorrow I will mail your friend asking for permission, and then forward the mail with the permission to the Wikimedia foundation using the OTRS system. I will then transfer the images to Commons. This will prevent all future misunderstanding regarding this licensing issue. kjetil_r 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have emailed him asking whether he could change the licenses. Having the image simply marked for deletion seemed a bit rude without any prior warning, hence my annoyance. The page Steven Gerrard gets vandalised pretty much everyday, again adding to my annoyance.

Regarding the Peter Crouch image, one day it was there and then it was gone. No explanation, no record of it ever having been there, so how am I supposed to follow it up with whomever removed it?! The photo on his page now should probably be deleted itself, ha, but I'll let you do that as you think yourself the expert in this situation. aLii 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You can see this in the log. Your friend's image was deleted by User:Kungfuadam, with the cryptic reason "csd i3". I am not sure what is the maning of "csd i3", you should ask User:Kungfuadam.

The current image of Crouch is tagged as a promotional photo. This is most likely not correct, and I will thus list if for deletion as a (possible) copyright violation. I agree that there are MANY other photos of footballers which are more deserving of deletion than your friend's. kjetil_r 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work! aLii 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Det var väldigt duktigt av dig att ordna upp tillståndet angående Image:Xabi Alonso.jpg och de andra bilderna! Thuresson 22:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've just done a major overhaul of Image:Spanish Empire.png, which you uploaded to Commons a few days ago. If you could at all find the time it might be worthwhile to update the image and description there. Cheers, Albrecht 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. kjetil_r 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Frankly speaking I'm not that sure (note when was the image uploaded). The author has donated most of his works to the Polish nation and it is currently held in a national museum, but I'm not sure whether that means Public Domain or only Polish Domain. Anyway, it's a two-dimensional depiction of a work of art and as such is for sure usable in wiki. //Halibutt 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

In America where Microsoft is headquartered there is no law preventing screenshots of Windows from being reproduced for illustrative and instructional purposes. Your explanation on the Wikimedia Commons site is that screenshots of any Windows program are subject to speedy deletion due I suppose to a misunderstanding of applicable copyright law. Microsoft however views such screenshots as a form of support and possibly free advertising rather than a violation of its copyrights which apply to imitation or duplication of its program screens in competing software products. Such publication is in fact common for creators of Windows operator capability tests such as are performed to test temporary office workers seeking employment in fields that require knowledge and use of any Window's product. Just in case your wrongful deletion was inspirited by a mistranslation of English or of American copyright law or simply a misunderstanding of the target being addressed by the phrase "no redistribution" you need to understand that this statement does not apply to screenshots but rather to an executable program that is created by submission of the user's source code to the compiler. Since these images have already served their purpose in the discussion and can be sent by email to anyone who has a question they do not need to be restored although your understanding of the law needs to be updated. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have answered you here. Kjetil_r 08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi mate, care reviewing this: User:Dr Zak/Statue. Dr Zak 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was an early wikipedia posting of mine. It is my picture and I'm not sure what the issue with it is now, but it's up there for free use by one and all. Carptrash 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Unfortunatly, your photo may not be used freely. Only the artist who made the sculpture may grant such a permission. If you want to keep your photo on Wikipedia, you should claim fair use. --Kjetil_r 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Recently you tagged one of my photos that I uploaded to Wikipedia as not having source information with the pui tag. If you had bothered to read the page on Image:MSU_Bronze_Sparty_2.jpg, you would've clearly seen that I wrote:

I also applied correct licensing to the page. You can see other photos I took during this session on my user page, User:Jeffness

Please take a bit more time to read the full contents of the image page before deciding that it is possibly in violation of copyright.--Jeff 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I looked into it a bit more and read about copyright of photographs of statue's. I changed the license tag on the image to {statue} which reflects its' use as fair use and explains fully copyright law regarding statues.. I Wish you would've done that at first and tried to explain more instead of doing {pui} and placing that copy and paste text on my talk page. Then I wouldn't have been so confused. --Jeff 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, personally I do not consider the use of this image in the article Michigan_State_University as fair use. The licensing tag says that "to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs (...) qualifies as fair use". One is not doing such in this article. I therfore still think it is a copyvio.

I can to some extent agree that I should have explained it more in detail, but I tagged a lot of photos of statues in the US as PUIs that day. Of course I should have tried to include a link to Commons:Derivative works, but when I do a lot of them, I often forget.

I have retagged the photo as a PUI, as you have not provided a fair use rationale. Please do not remove the tag until this case has been resolved.--Kjetil_r 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. It's gone. -Nv8200p talk 04:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to ask where you right hand is. The image looks incriminating, LOL. Cheers! Royalbroil 02:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I honestly can't remember! I was most likely holding a cigar og my camera... :-) --Kjetil_r 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your note here, i changed the licence of the image [1]. I found the image at Arabic wikipedia [2] where it is tagged under public domain according to Egyptian law where images are protected for 15 years only [3].If you feel this is enough, please remove the {{no source}} template.--Wedian 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If you can provide a source that confirms the date which the photo was published, and a source that confirms that the photo was first published in Egypt, then the {{no source}} template can be removed. Sincerely, --Kjetil_r 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Image:SmetanaStatuePilsen.JPG was uploaded by Lumidek on 20 July 2004. The {{GFDL}} tag was added by Quadell on 4 February 2005. There was no information on the image source. Conscious 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are there any necessary attribution details for Image:Russ Chandler Stadium.jpg? Template:Cc-by-2.5 offers a parameter in the event that there are. --Iamunknown 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Drews did not specify how he wants to be attributed. Kjetil_r 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. IMO, Mr. Drews was not adequately informed about the license. See [4]. The license is conditional: the reuser must attribute the way specified by the licensor. I'm not sure 2.5 is meant for someone who doesn't specify a method of attribution. --Iamunknown 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The vast majority of users who upload their photos as cc-by to Wikipedia and to Commons do not explicitly specify a method of attribution. Do you suggest that the licenses of these images are void?

Mr. Drews states that “I, Jon Drews, do solemnly swear that I agree to the creative commons license cc-by-2.5 (as listed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ for the following image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Russ_Chandler_Stadium.jpg .” The user asking Mr. Drews for this statement specified the terms of the license. I do not really see the problem. Kjetil r 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, Kjetil r, I don't. Because, frankly, I am not a lawyer. But I'm not sure you are either, so I'm inclined think neither of us really knows if the current licensing status is appropriate. --Iamunknown 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Post a note at commons:Village pump, and ask for feedback from other users. I am BTW a computer scientist, and certainly no lawyer. Kjetil r 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, would you consider looking at my note at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Right now it's at the bottom. I'm really concerned that it is a copyvio ... and no one has responded yet. To make matters worse, it is on the front page of this wiki right now. If you have any comments, feel free to post them there; if not, thanks for your consideration. --Iamunknown 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just noticed your nomination for deletion of the image Image:Ted_kulongoski.jpg. I did not originally upload it, but would like to resolve the situation. The user who uploaded it is on wikibreak, and has expressed frustration regarding images he uploaded being nominated for deletion without adequate instruction on how to properly express permission. I believe it would be a great disservice to Wikipedia for such a productive editor to stop contributing permanently, and would like to assist him and educate him.

Could you please help me do so, by answering these questions?

• What is the appropriate way to assert permission, once it's been granted? I happen to know the former Deputy Communications Director who was cited, which might be useful.
• What aspect of the justification given do you question? (The authority of the Deputy Comm. Director, the veracity of the claim, …?)
• What can be done to avoid this sort of hassle in the event of future uploads, with permission, of copyrighted materials?

Thank you, -Pete 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pete.

I understand that our image policy is difficult to understand. The uploader of this image is not the only one who has difficulties understanding what to do.

1. The copyright holder should use the declaration of consent found at Commons:Email templates. Many permissions are ambiguous, by using this template one can avoid that. This statement should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so that it can be stored for future reference (the uploader correctly did that part)
2. The problem is that the statement is too ambiguous. We need explicit permission for commercial use, and for the right to make derivative works. The statement "You have permission to distribute the Governor's photo far and wide" does not mention these issues.
3. These kinds of problems are common. I guess that the vague upload form is the core of the problem. The form does not really mention what to do with images you have permission for. I personally like the solution at the French Wikipedia. Try going there and click “Importer une image.” One is not taken directly to the upload form, but rather to a walkthrough explaining what to do in different scenarios. This solution forces the uploader to actually read the instructions. Also, the Commons upload page (you will need a Commons account to view it) does specify what to do better than the English Wikipedia does it. It is my opinion that some of the elements of the Commons upload page should be inported into the English Wikipedia's page, and that this would have reduced the possibilities of misunderstandings.

If you think you can get a proper permission for the copyright holder, please go ahead. If you are doing so, please write a note at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images so that the image will not be deleted until the issue is resolved. If you need assistance from me, please do not hesitate to ask me, as I would be happy to help. Chuck (Kjetil r) 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the detailed response. As I've noted elsewhere, I'm attempting to resolve it; I think your instructions are sufficient. When this is resolved, I would like to help improve the form and the problems you identify in item #3. I have encountered similar problems at the Commons site, and can say from personal experience, this is very discouraging when an editor is attempting to make a good faith contribution. I believe Wikipedia should address this issue in order to retain quality editors, and will do what I can to make that happen. Maybe you can help when it gets to that point? -Pete 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll help you. Kjetil r 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I placed this message to you at Jimbo Wales discussion page.There's a lot more for another user who placed his views about this matter too.

Machocarioca: It was decided at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KEITHR.JPG that the image should be deleted. I did not participate in the deletion debate, and I do not have strong feelings about this image. But when you upload it again, and say that you intend to do so over and over again, you should be blocked. Seven days was perhaps too much, so I'll unblock you now. The block has now expired. You can write a note at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests, but please do not upload it again. Kjetil r 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC), changed 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Forgive me , but I strongly desagree . It was decided for who? By one arbitrary administrator without any, repeating, any evidence to that, as you can read in the discuss page. The only messages there were from two users who say that they talked with me before and I said the image was really mine. Just that. No arbitrary users, just came to me to confirm. Agree? Please, read the discussion and find ANY evidence that suppports the deletion. So, there wasn't any accordance to that, just of the user who began all the process coming from nowhere to say he "doubted" about the ownership of an image placed here months ago.

I will write a note in the undelection request and wait to read the arguments against or not. I'm very upset with these arbitrary act, as you can see, by two irresponsable users from antoher wiki, Lugusto and Dantadd.

And you, sir, blocked me because I "reuploaded a COPYVIO". What?? Could you say me what copyvio were you talking about? I think you made a huge mistake supporting an arbitrary act of another one, in a "debate" (it wasn't) you neither participate. An this "expired block" was an absurd one, forgive me. Ok, I know you, administrators, will never block an administrator for arbitrary acts, you will ever suppport them, this is a problema here in Wikipedia and the reason of some many angry among the users. I just think this method doesn't work. Maybe is the real reason why Jerry Sanger got out. Anyone, who we do not know who is or his capacity to understand an especific matter can decide what he wants if he is an "administrator". The human being never fails... Thank you. Machocarioca 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)MachocariocaReply

This one I am placing just here: Although what in my view was an arbitrary act from you (block me for ONE WEEK!) , in fact I think you will be a reasonable guy and will suport my right to upload my own work. This delection was an absurd. Machocarioca 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)MachocariocaReply

I am sure this is what you were expecting me to say, but I did not save it from the Manchester United webpage as it isn't even on there, and the one I uploaded was larger than any existing on the site, so please could you provide for me the URL of the page where you saw this picture on the Manchester United internet page. Regards R_Orange 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

One can find it at manutdpics.com, search for Smith. The copyright information says "Photo by John Peters / Manchester United via Getty Images." Do you still claim it to be your own work? Regards, Kjetil r 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does say that, but if you click on the "I" (picture information) when the photo is shown, the club's ensign is featured on the picture and right-click is unavailable, so how could I have saved it from that page? Sincerely R_Orange 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You did not answer my question: Do you still claim it to be your own work. If not, why are we having this discussion? Yours sincerely, Kjetil r 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Like you say why are we having the discussion? The image is deleted, and I see no real importance of the copyright and license right because of this. So I request your permission to draw this lengthy conversation to a close, and please do not reply. Thanks for your efforts though. Regards. R_Orange 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, let us close the conversation. But please do not upload copyright violations in the future, and claim them to be your own work. Kjetil r 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mcquail mass communication theory.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please don't add your credit to image captions on Wikipedia. Image credits belong on the image pages, not in captions within Wikipedia articles. Please note that if you release your images on the condition that an attribution is given as you have done so at the Commons pages, these images are unfree and can't therefore be used on Wikipedia. Thanks. 81.159.254.193 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Giving improper attribution will naturally make me less prone to upload my images. The English Wikipedia's failure to honor photographers' wishes is one of the reasons I contribute to Citizendium instead. Thanks, Kjetil r (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your input. The problem will be resolved shortly.Griffiths911 (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, great! --Kjetil r (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

		The Czech Ribbon of National Merit
		I award you with our national ribbon for uploading image of our portal to commons. Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I moved it to Commons because I needed it for the Norwegian equivalent of Template:CzechRepublic-stub!   --Kjetil r (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi mate, you tidied up the photo I took of Roy Keane that is used on his page - could you do the same with my photo on the Robbie Murray page?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I tried, but the picture was too much out of focus / blurry, so I couldn't fix it. Regards, --Kjetil r (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there was plenty of sauce on board that night alright - I thought it could be unsalvagable alright. Can the right side be cropped off at least?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. --Kjetil r (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice one - thanks!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool, but is it relevant there? Does no-wp even allow non-free images? Also, I notice that although the word for chicken seems to be "kylling", the word for "fried chicken" is "grillet gylling". Does that mean Norwegian has initial consonant mutations like the Celtic languages do? —Angr 11:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it was a typo, it is now corrected. ;-)

It is true that no-wp does not allow non-free images, but some users propose to allow them from time to time. I therefore think that your essay is relevant, as … well, I guess I don't need to teach you about the disadvantages of allowing non-free images. --Kjetil r (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How disappointing about the typo. Here I was hoping to be the first linguist to discover initial consonant mutation in a Germanic language... And you're right, the parable is relevant if there are people agitating for NFIs at no-wp. —Angr 11:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 07:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

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. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have not moved any pages to nonsensical titles. As you may see in Joel Macey's and Nicklas Bendtner's history pages, it was the user Joel macey (talk · contribs) who moved the page to a nonsensical title. I merely moved the article back to its proper title. Regards, --Kjetil r (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the message. It was placed by twinkle to the person who created the redirect instead of to the person who moved the page in the first place. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem.   But perhaps one should tell the twinkle developers about this bug? --Kjetil r (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Image in question is a promotional film poser for the film Double Cross. It is impossible to obtain any other free equivalent of the poster. Image is only used fairly to illustrate the Negar Khan article.Please add the keep tag on the pic and remove the deletion tag. Respond on my talk page. --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Image in question is a promotional film poser for the film Double Cross. It is impossible to obtain any other free equivalent of the poster. Image is only used fairly to illustrate the Negar Khan article.Please add the keep tag on the pic and remove the deletion tag. Respond on my talk page. --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well,I was also planning on creating a Double cross article on wikipedia, although I must admit my priority was for the Negar Khan article. So then,is it ok ? --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice photo upload. Any chance you, or I, could crop the image to fit the box and show more of him? I can do it with your OK. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I personally don't think it is a good idea as the image is quite noisy; but sure, if you think a cropped photo is better, we should go for it. I uploaded File:Nouriel Roubini 05.jpg and updated the infobox. --Kjetil r (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great job!. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kjetil r, may I please ask you, if of course you have a time, to help me to translate the following in English? Google does not a good job with this. Thank you for your time, and please feel absolutely free to tell me that you do not have a time to do it, if you do not. "Fra Gerhard Schønnings besøk i Melhus kirke siteres : "Ved den søndre Siide af Indgangen til Choret, staaer et Epitaphium som K a r e n, A n d e r s H e l k a n d t s, har ladet sætte, over sine Forældre og Børn". ("Børn" skal vel være "Søskende", se senere)

Dette "Epitaphium" hang i gammelkirka i Melhus, Det blev ikke flyttet over til nykirka, da den gamle middelalderkirka blev revet i 1890.

"Eldre folk i bygda visste å fortelle at det hadde hengt ei tavle på veggen i gammelkirka Men i nykirka var den ikke kommet og mange tenkte på hvor den var havnet. Bare noen få visste at den var satt unda på - Søndre Melhuus gård". --Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can understand that Google has a hard time (as the text is semi-archaic), but I'll give it a try:

Quotation from Gerhard Schønning's visit to Melhus Church:

"At the southern side of the entrance to the choir, there is an 'Epitaphium'[1] that Karen and Anders Helkands[2] have erected to their parents and children". ("Children" is probably supposed to be "siblings", see below)

This 'Epitaphium' was located in the old church in Melhus, it was not transfered to the new church when the medieval church was demolished in 1890.

"Older villagers could tell that there was a piece[3] at the wall of the old church. But it was not transfered to the new church, and many were wondering about where it was. Only a few knew that it was hidden in Søndre Melhuus gård[4]."

(1) I have no idea what an 'Epitaphium' is. I couldn't find it in any Norwegian dictionary.

(2) I interpret 'Karen, Anders Helkandts' as '(Mrs) Karen and (Mr) Anders Helkandts', but I'm only ~95% sure. An alternative meaning could perhaps be 'Karen, daughter of Anders Helkandts'.

(3) I'm not sure if 'piece' is the correct English translation of Norwegian 'tavle'; but I think the German word would be 'Retabel'.

(4) 'Søndre Melhuus gård' is a proper noun, so I haven't translated it. It could be translated to 'Southern Melhus Estate' or 'Southern Melhus farm'.

Regards, --Kjetil_r 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! It is kind of you. I believe Epitaphium is Epitaph. Google translator gave me the word "plague". I was trying to find out how this word is connected to the rest of this, but you did not see this word at all. BTW Norwegian article about Melhus Kirke (at least I got to know one word in Norwegian :) ) has the same text. Anyway... Thank you for your time and for your help!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

And for the record: The phrase '("Children" is probably supposed to be "siblings", see below)' is part of the original quotation, not something added by me ;-) --Kjetil_r 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wrote the article Melhus church and nominated it for DYK including you as an author for helping me with translation. It was declined, but here you might take a look (second nomination from the top. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, this article and DYK nominations are gone now because user:Orland did not like the article. Once again I sorry I bothered you. Thank you and all the best.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eg har fiksa artiklane no. Sjå Goa Velha og Old Goa. --Arvind (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, flott! --Kjetil_r 06:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

On June 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melhus church, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can you please provide references to back up your undiscussed move of Giurgiu-Rousse Friendship Bridge to Danube Bridge? It's usually better to discuss moves that may be controversial, and if not, you must at least back your point. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

To make it clear: I saw you've added sources to the usage of "Danube Bridge". I'm not disputing this; indeed, it's the common name for the bridge in Bulgarian. The name is not used in Romanian, however, and Romanian readers would be unfamiliar with it. What I'm asking for is references that it is "no longer called the Friendship Bridge". This seems to be the most common name in Romanian and the formal name of the bridge. Todor→Bozhinov 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Just to let you know that this dab has been nominated for speedy deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for notifying me. Deleting the disambiguation page seems reasonable to me. Regards, --Kjetil_r 08:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Kjetil r! 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 540 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Kjell Roar Kaasa - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Stefan Ishizaki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you haven't seen the recent changes to the Iceland page, specifically the name, you might want to take a look. There's an editor who's trying to undo the consensus you guys made about the "republic of" issue. I think he's a little obsessive about some he calls "long-form names", as I found from his talk page. It seems a bit bizarre to me. He's had himself banned over it, I think. You might want to take a look at the conversation I've been having with him as well. It's in 2 parts. Thank you for your time. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Dagbladet 1995-09-02.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You orphan the image yourself, and then tag it for speedy deletion as a {{di-orphaned fair use}}? I suggest that you reinstate it, and rather open a request at WP:IFD. Regards, --Kjetil_r 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

What you write is correct. This is standard procedure for dealing with clearcut copyright violations. Had I been the least bit doubtful about my action I would certainly have called for a consensus-forming discussion on the issue. As I have sufficient experience in these matters to be very certain about the outcome of any such discussion I decided not to burden the community with rubberstamping an already made outcome. You may however, as you please, contest my action by readding the image to the article where it was in use. That will force me to go through a full nomination. __meco (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The image is now taken to FfD due to the action of another Norwegian editor. __meco (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You are right the Oak Leaves had been awarded in 1940 not 1941. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. You have my talk at Eisfbnore's talk page. Eisfbnore ^talk 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi-- I notice that back on 28 April 2012 you deleted a number of children's songs from List of songs recorded by Lead Belly with the somewhat misleading edit summary (rv. possible vandalism ("min tøs")) (which was one of a large number of deletions made in a single edit). In fact those children's titles, such as "More Yet" and "Little Boy How Old Are You" were legitimate, recorded by Lead Belly in 1944. You may want to review your last year's edit and reinstate the deleted songs. I have no idea what "min tøs" might be, but this one entry should stay deleted. Thanks for your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. "Min tøs" means my "my slut" or "my bitch" in Danish and Norwegian. It could be that many (if not all) of the additions by Holly Fab Napoli (talk · contribs) were legitimate, but the unsourced addition of "slut"/"bitch" made me assume that it was possible vandalism. I thus reverted him. If the songs he added indeed were legitimate, please put them back in. Regards, Kjetil_r 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

:-) Well, I had thought you might want to clean up your own errors instead of leaving it for someone else to fix. Regards, Milkunderwood (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I certainly see your point. :-) However, I am not comfortable with (re-)adding unsourced material that I'm not familiar with – you seem to know Lead Belly better than I do, and you should be in a better position for knowing which of the songs that are appropriate for the list. Regards, Kjetil_r 21:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Kil toppfotball.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hei Kjetil

Vi ønsker å endre bildet av Skjeberg Folkehøyskole som du har lagt ut på Wiki-siden for Skjeberg Folkehøyskole. Skolen har gjennomgått en total renovering, og framstår mye mer moderne i dag. Kan du hjelpe oss med å fjerne ditt gamle bilde?

Vennlig hilsen Sveinung Finden kst rektor Skjeberg Folkehøyskole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.98.2.55 (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hei! Nå har jeg fjernet det gamle bildet. Dere kan laste opp et nytt her: [5] Hilsen Kjetil_r 16:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Kjell Roar Kaasa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG

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. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kjell Roar Kaasa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjell Roar Kaasa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hei Kjetil!

Jeg har lyst å bruke et av bildene dine i en kommersiell sammenheng, kunne du sendt meg mailen din så kan jeg gi deg litt mer info?

Takk for svar