User talk:Orland

Female bishops

Thank you for adding to the "Female bishops" category which I created earlier this year. I appreciate your assistance in making this category more useful. Ringbark 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that someone has proposed this category for deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_26#Category:Female_bishops and vote. Ringbark 11:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OIC Map

Sorry, but I'm not really a fan of Wikicommons. I'm not that active there and I don't have an ID. Maybe you could ask Astrokey. He's active there and is more an expert in doing maps--maybe he can even make a higher standard OIC map. Now that I'm looking at the map, I think it is of poor quality (i.e. very poor resolution, not good color scheme, etc.). Joey80 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mehmet murat ildan

Hi I read your comment on huwiki about this turkish writer. well, I looked at the article in enwiki and checked the refs, the fact he has several published works (not one but at least 10) has to mean some form of notability... Self-promotion? don't think so, since he pronounced on his website that his biography is released into the public domain along with every piece of information on his website.... So the bio on enwiki was copied from there legally. Some of his works were published by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Turism. That must mean something :) (sorry for not writing to your NO page but it requires registration and I don't speak norwegian. :) --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not relevant to readers in languages that he has not been translated into. And the article is obviously lying about his reputation, as it foresees how his reputation will be in the future. Please note the intro statement "Following his epistolary novel, The First Sorrows of Young Werther, he is regarded as a romantic writer", when the book in question is due to be published in february this year. When the article also states that this unpublished The First Sorrows of Young Werther is his magnum opus, we an easily assume that this author is not notable, yet. --Orland 07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message. This article is already nominated for deletion on id:. So we shall wait and see. Meursault2004 13:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

whatever mistakes the writer of the aricle made, you fail to recognise the works already published! as I said, he has been publsihed by the turkish ministry of culture, jeez, they don't publish anyone. I don't see why these articles should be deleted. Corrected, yes, but definitely not deleted. There are a lot more less notable people in wikipedia, I sense that you just partcularly dislike this person or the Turks and that blinds you from the facts. And this is not just my opinion, in huwiki there are some more editors who think the same, and they are not turkophile. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a strange misconcetion that I should have taken this steps to delete the article because I dislike the turks. I do not dislike turks. I like turks as well as any other people. This has nothing to do with the country, the people or the possible qualities of Ildans litterary works. My action is because his biography has spammed wikipedia way beyond reason. Even though an anonymous newbee Special:Contributions/Melanicool has corrected the most obvious errors in the biography, this is still selfbiograhy, vanity and spamming. --Orland 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy is becoming an expert in sock-puppets: 3 votes (including the IP). I think you should really consider requesting a Check-User. Clem23 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please refrain from pasting speedy delete notices that have been removed. It creates confusion and can be disruptive for Wikipedia. Thank you. Baristarim 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Baristarim. Please relate to the real matter in question: Someone has made a large number of articles on upublished manuscripts by Mehmet Murat İldan. These articles will only harme his case in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan-debate. --Orland 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT keep on replacing speedy deletion notices that have been removed by many editors. You should read Wikipedia:Speedy deletions - self-promotion is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Baristarim 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this better, then? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli --Orland 09:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better :) In fact, I will qualify my vote there. It is just that speedy deletion process exists to get rid of articles that are complete non-sense in an effort to keep Wikipedia respectable, and if it were ever used for these sorts of disputes, the process would become much less efficient. Cheers! Baristarim 11:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Baristarim. Thank you for your support. As one user said on my norweigan talk page: "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP". As a sign of my respect for the the people of Turkey, and the literature of Turkey (and to prove that my actions only were intended to prevent spam, and had no intended bias), I am considering to write an article on Yasar Kemal in the norwegian wp. Would you approve that? Could you also suggest one or two other writers, artists or other turkish people that currently is missing in wp:no; check no:Kategori:Tyrkere for existing biographies. --Orland 11:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A statement in the Ildan case

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan.I got aware of this spamming incident when Ildan anonymously tries to publish himself to the norwegian wp, where I'm an admin and "cleaner". I discovered that he had published himself to 31 different wp-editions. I started the process to delete the article in norwegian, and to alarm other language editions. (Note: Most Wikis have only two turkish author articles: Nobel price winner Orhan Pamuk; and Ildan. Turkish national author Yasar Kemal is only described in 10 laguages yet, so this is clearly unproportional).

A french editor wrote on my norwegian talk page that "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP. On WP in french we are now shifting towards deletion, and all of his plays and books have already been speedily deleted. Thanks to you. fr:Clem23".

As of now it is clear that he is not listed in major turkish lists of authors [1]; that most of the articles (in all languages) are written by himself (probably using a translation programme); that he (or some other person) has used at least four suck puppets in the english deletion debate; and that turkishs contributors admit that " i've never heard of him in my life before his Wikiactivity. He is definitely not famous in Turkey, that i can assure you".

Articles about 10 of his unpublished and unstaged (!) plays have also been listed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli

That's for now. --Orland 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous suggestions that my actions should have anything to do with racism is totally without reason. I've already propsed to write 1-3 articles on other turkish authors og artists in the norwegian wikipedia in order to strenghten our representation of turkish art. And furthermore: As a literary critic, I've previously written an short essay on libanese author Amin Maalouf and a general essay on middle east literature in norwegian translation (link to essay, and even if you dont read norwegian, you might recognize some names: like Pamuk, Kemal, Khayyam, Mahfouz). --Orland 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! About the message you left me here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discu%C5%A3ie_Utilizator%3AVlad&diff=794465&oldid=787703 the only problem we have back there at the Romanian wiki is that until now we only had speedy deletion, not voting for deletion (we're still a relatively small community, and we prefer to expand rather than to delete :) But like I've already said, I've opened a discussion about it, but I would also like to see the outcome of the vote here at the en.wiki. --Vlad|-> 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! As no one objected to the deletion of the article during 10 days, I've just deleted it from Romanian wiki. --Vlad|-> 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

Stop vandalizing the List_of_University_of_Essex_people page.

You obviously confuse me with the person who edited to the article after me. Please read edit history again. --Orland 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lumb

Nice job!! Thanks. --20-dude (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

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! 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna Ceselie Brustad Moe

Why you moved the tile from Anna Ceselie Brustad to Anna Ceselie Brustad Moe? BTW, Government of Norway is redirecting to Politics of Norway. Can create the article Government of Norway? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As i wrote in the article, she is married to fellow MP Ola Borten Moe, and signed in the newspaper as Anna Ceselie Brustad Moe yesterday.
Sorry, but i cannot promise to write the requested article, perhaps a notice on The norwegian message board will give a response?! --Orland (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetization and collation

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Police crisis in Norway

Hi, what happened with the section "Police Crisis"? I thought I got a go for adding it to the page again from WikiProject Law Enforcement? And where did you put it? Daimonion (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Melhus church

Hi Orland, of course I cannot agree with your DYK review, but I would like to ask you, if you change your mind, if I change the hook? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, still disturbed. You are violating the aim of a balanced article about the church. See more at Talk:Melhus church. Bw --Orland (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Melhus church (2nd)

The following is copied from the deleted article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I must ask User:Mbz1 to stop violating and renaming this article in search for a headline. Who has come up with the idea that the debate about the Darre/Dass-portrait should be the sole interesting thing about this church? Where is the part about other church art within this church? Where is the part about architectural history?

The discussion about the portrait should be in the article about Petter Dass, certainly not here! As for me, I live relatively close to this church, which is i my home county. As an art historican and librarian i can confirm that the debate is real, but i think that the resume of it in this article is biased. --Orland (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And here's some more for your good memory. I wish instead of screaming "POV", "no,no,no" "bad" from "bad to worse" you'd better helped to improve the article, but I guess this is too much to ask for.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Melhus church

• ... that the only portrait of Petter Dass, which is located in the Melhus church (pictured), may be of an absolutely different man?
• ALT1:... that Medieval runic inscriptions were discovered on the old portal of Melhus church (pictured)?

Created by Mbz1 (talk), Invertzoo (talk), Kjetil r (talk), and Finnrind (talk). Self nom at 22:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

•   Melhus church – Mbz1 (give) (tag)
•   Melhus church – Invertzoo (give) (tag)
•   Melhus church – Kjetil r (give) (tag)
•   Melhus church – Finnrind (give) (tag)

• -Need someone Norwegian to translate sources to verify.Smallman12q (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• In such caes were supossed to agf it. But what I wonder is why is ther 4 creators, when only 2 have worked the article? Also, is fact cited? 88.90.88.107 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@Smallman12q Is one of the creators OK for the translation, or I should look for someone else or maybe we could assume good faith?

@88.90.88.107 Two others creators helped with Norwegian translation and the images. If four creators are too much, I will gladly take myself off, but all the others shoud stay. The facts are cited, and the source is very reliabale - Petter Dass museum in Norway for the hook .--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Creators cannot ok their own article. 2. Mbz1, you & Invertzoo wrote the article, Finnrind Kjetil r didn't, thats the problem. 3. AGF = Assume good faith (ie: translation not needed) 4. cite not at claim. 88.90.88.107 (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite needs to be directly at hook fact. 88.90.88.107 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said they helped with the images and the translation. For example here. It will be only fair to include them as creators becuse they spent their time for translation from Norwegian that I do not know either. Could you please explain to me what does it mean "Cite needs to be directly at hook fact." ? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In stead of after "In the meantime the "portrait of Petter Dass" in Melhus Kirke remains surrounded by myth and mystery", it should be after "However, some historians believe that the subject of this famous portrait is not Petter Dass, but the clergyman Oluf Mentzen Darre." If Petter Dass museum says that. 88.90.88.107 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to have it verified by someone who can read norwegian (and was not involved in the development of the article). If no such person comes forth within a day or two, I will then assume good faith and accept it as it is.Smallman12q (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I would not recommend this article for DYK, mostly because the article deals with another subject than the church, which is supposed to be the subject. The autencity of the portrait is obviously discussed, and the discussion is well know in Norway, but the resume of the debate given in this article is slightly rhethoric and POV. --Orland (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has some good points, but overall I must agree with Orland, for instance, compare it with the Norwegian Wiki-article. --FinnWiki (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

@Orland, you ment my POV? Did I translate wrong from Norwegian source? I did not add any single thought from myself, and translated practicaly word to word from Norwegian sources. The portrait is the most famous belonging of the church. What's wrong with discussing this in the article? Even Dass museum does. I rather see you pushing your POV in declining the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The POV is not in the translation, but in the excerpt from the discussion, which is obviously pro Hansens arguments, and contra those of the Dass museum. (And, as i write below, making this debate a part of a description of the church is a violation of a balanced presentation of the church itself). --Orland (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

@FinnWiki, Compare it with Norwegian article, which has no single reference at all. Do you really like it better? --Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Added alternative hook and changed the name of the article to address the subject better.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no!! This goes from bad to worse! Wikipedia should without any doubt have an article about Melhus church, but by renaming this article you are increasingly underlining the POV: this is totally turning wievpoint away from the chcurch per se. Who has come up with the idea that the debate about this Darre/dass-portrait should be the sole interesting thing about this church. Where is the discussion of other church art within this church? Where is the part about architectural history? The discussion about the portrait should be in the article abot [Petter dass]], certainly not here! --Orland (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Orland, maybe instead of blaiming me in POV you would be so kind to edit the article and to "add the discussion of other church art within this church and the part about architectural history?" I put in the article almost everything I could find on the subject, and I worked on it for a very long time, and very hard. I really tried to do my best, and I believe the artical is better then the one in Norwegian Wikipedia. Surely, you, Orland, living in Norway have much more resurces availabale to you. Why don't you help to edit the article instead of calling it "bad" and POV? In a meantime I guess I will nominate the article to be deleted. I've got enough here and I withdraw my nomination. Thanks everybody, sorry I took your time with a bad article and POV.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

- A small debate and you withdraw=(? You must understand that articles are nominated based on consensus, leave it here for a few more days and we'll see what other editors say. You see this is what you call a poor discussion. I agree with Mbz1, rather than saying its a bad article, you should help with it. As it currently stands, the article may still qualify for DYK if other editors can come to a consensus.Smallman12q (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's what Orland said at the article talk page:
"I must ask User:Mbz1 to stop violating and renaming this article in search for a headline. Who has come up with the idea that the debate about the Darre/Dass-portrait should be the sole interesting thing about this church? Where is the part about other church art within this church? Where is the part about architectural history?

The discussion about the portrait should be in the article about Petter Dass, certainly not here! As for me, I live relatively close to this church, which is i my home county. As an art historican and librarian i can confirm that the debate is real, but i think that the resume of it in this article is biased. --Orland (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)"
So that's why I decided I've got enough. I nominated the article for speedy and it was deleted, nothing more to discuss here. I only would like to add that, if I were looking for a "headline" as Orland says, it was not for myself, because as I indicated earlier in this very nomination I was ready to take my name as a creator of the article off the nomination. It was start class article that could have been improved later on. Much more information that I could not find could have been added later. Now the article is gone, and there's nothing more to improve.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Smiles

Orland, may I please asure you that there was no any tiny bit of bias and/or POV in writing Melhus church article. I simly tried to do my best. It was hard for me to find info for the article. It just happened that what I did find was mostly about the portrait. Please believe me I was absolutely not interested in creating any headlines for myself. May I please ask you to help in improving of the article? Thank you.

Orland, Mbz1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing. Yesterday I removed my nomination for DYK, but today I renominated the article to DYK once again. If you feel as declining the article once again, I guess you need to repeat your decline one more time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the smile. And best wishes to you too! I must correct you on one misunderstanding though: even if I can point out a misinterpretation or wrong focused article, this is not necessarily an obligation for me to correct this article. I've got other obligations on no:wp, and in my offline life. --Orland (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do not have to do it. I just asked. One more time I'd like to asure you that, if there were misinterpretation or wrong focus in the article it was not because I was biased or tried to push my POV. I simply tried to add to the article as much information as I was able to find on the subject. I do hope that eventually the article will get improved in the way you suggested. I myself will also continue to work on the article. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orland, I am sorry to bother you once again, but you removed my edit. I believe I found the confirmation of the statement about Odin here. Of course this thing does not have a source at all, but I did find the source here. So, as you could see the old Melhus church was built at the farm that used to have the name Óðinssalr. So, I believe it might be safe to add the statement you removed back to the article. On the other hand I'm surely recognize your authority in the questions concerning Norway, and if you still believe the info is not sourced, I will not add it to the article. Thank you for your time, and once again I'm sorry to bother you with this.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. It is a well known fact / theory that most medieval churches in norway was built on the site of a hof, partly to explicit replace the former religion, and partly because these sites used to be located at the largest farm and/or in the midst of the community / valley / district. Thus, it would be wrong to emphazise this in connection with one church only. It belongs rather in Christianization of Scandinavia or History of Norway. (And furthermore, the source first used was definitely not of a kind to recommend). Bw, --Orland (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Orland! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. 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 this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Carolyn Coman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Immigration to Norway

never mind about the 300% thing. It's already removed. But seriously, how can you claim that immigrants are net contributers to society because they pay more taxes than they recieve in welfare. I see that the source claims so, but are welfare benefits really the only expenses of a state? I'd say the source is wrong here. And remember, sources arent always right. Use your brain please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knarum (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orland, I believe the correct slang at Wikipedia in English is SPA, not SPU - apart from that I think you're right... Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

SPA is noted :-) This guy Knarum must have lots of friends sharing his views .... --Orland (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he don't have that many friends after all, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SameerJaved... Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

At last! Good to have "them" stopped. --Orland (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

obviously Knarum hated migrants to Norway. the agenda was very clear and I suspected there was more to it when I saw SameerJaved (talk · contribs) appear. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

81.167.16.214 (talk · contribs)

Hi. I saw that you left a user warning template ({{uw-tdel3}}) at this IP's talk page for about two weeks ago, and was wondering if you could take a look at this: This IP has added a new section in the article Criticism of multiculturalism—which I've been watching for a year or so—appearently discussing the topic at a Norwegian scale. Eventhough it looks encyclopedical and well-referenced at the first glance, it is quite problematic: The section does not deal with criticism of multiculturalism in Norway in any sense, but merely with his/her own POV, based on some controversies related to antisemitism and islam in Norway. I can't find one single reference to any Norwegian commentator or author engaging in public debate about multiculturalism in that section, as it is in many of the other sections, e.g. to the Canadian author Mark Steyn in the section Criticism from English Canada. As far, I've seen a violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV in these edits, but there's more: The IP user duplicated two paragraphs, which are now to be found under the sub-section Multicultural shools in Oslo and in the end of Integration Barometer 2009, and used quotation marks and words like "thus" about six–seven times in the section, making the text quite un-encyclopedical and essayish. Would you mind taking a look? Best wishes, Eisfbnore (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but it seems like an edit war is starting to evolve from the above mentioned article. The text in the Norway-section does still not contain any criticism of multiculturalism in Norway, but rather problems related to immigration to Norway. Bw, Eisfbnore (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the article Criticism of multiculturalism is in itself written in a troublesome genre. We must only try to keep it as good as possible. I've got it on my surveilance list. --Orland (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

SUL request es:wp

This it to confirm that I'm posting a SUL request at es:Wikipedia:Cambiar el nombre de usuario. Bw --Orland (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Artur Balder References

• References:.

There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them: I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past.

Lolox76 (talk)--Lolox76 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. When you start listing google searches as "references", I understand that we must think very differently about this. You must remember that this article was once deleted because of the spamming campaign. Therefore, is has to be so much better now, to be convincing. The article about Balder was deleted on spanish wikipedia. To me, that is a signal: If you can't convince in your own home language, why should we make an article in english wp? Bw --Orland (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is just a bad signal for the Wikipedia itself, when a certain number of Wikipedia editors do NOT respect the rules and purposes of the Wikipedia. The actual references, as the previous ones, requiere JUST an impartial review from a neutral comitee. Frustrated critics, or editors that otherwise are not able to achive notability, unless making a fuss about phantom spam campaigns... are, from our point of view, not the appropiate counsellors for a global organism like Wikipedia. The references are there, and you will not be able to do nothing with, unless read them, and accept the facts. Best --Lolox76 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You have made a good deal of suggestions and wild guesses about my "misfeelings", "frustrations" and motivations in your recent edits. That is not a very good manner of discussion, neither is it a good way of convincing other wp editors about your good intentions.

Since you suggested that my profile of contributions "look much more destructive than constructive", I've taken time to enlighten you and other readers on the "profile of my contributions"; I have actually even written about spanish literature: here. And I regret to renounce your kind suggestion that I should make wp edits about spanish american history; I'm currently busy on a major project on no:wp, as you can see on this working page. Bw --Orland (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever read my messages on the boards will undestand what's about. However, you are always steping out of the matter and the subject. If you have only a 10% of the Spanish knowledge you try to show, you will have to be able to step back and look at the references, and preciate them as that what they are. On top of that, there is a confirmation from NY and, if requiered, Meatpacking Productions LLC will show the references and direct information about the director and the film adressed to wp editors in the official site of the company www.meatpackingproductions.us I think this is the best way to "confirm" identities for everyone, not only for someone who is obviously taking the matter too personal. No one will undestand why you dont want to recognice the proofs of Artur Balder as writer or filmmaker, and the many references even of the trnaslation of the books... That's why I insist on your lack of neutrality.--Lolox76 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Artur Balder, Spanish Benevolent Society, Little Spain

As you are so proud of collaborating in some spam campaigns, I think you should check the above listed articles -included international references- and present a public apology for your behaviour in your Artur Balder personal campaign. Otherwise it will be necessary an investigation by other organisms inside the wp editing foundation about the deletion campaign against the main subject. Thanks --Lolox76 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)