Talk:Stian Heimlund Skjæveland

Have removed excessive external links

I have removed excessive external links, Wikipedia is not a link farm. There is a link to the artist's home page and his page at the Norwegian Arts Council, that should suffice. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The above mentioned external links have been inserted again, without any discussion regarding what I see is my valid points related to Wikipedia policy above, that Wikipedia is not a link farm. From our policy of what links to include it seems clear to me that two external links should be enough for this article, as I have argued above. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A possible solution could perhaps be to convert some of the ELs into inline citations? Eisfbnore • talk 07:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What would that solve? To preserve external links that are not needed? I can not see the need for the content in the links to support the content of the article, it seems that they are used mainly for marketing reasons, and that is also why they should be removed. Ulflarsen (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

To reduce the number of external links to two would also bring this article in line with that of the other two language versions of it, and would as I have written earlier, display the artists home page and his page at the Norwegian Arts Council. For a little known artist that should IMHO be sufficient. I am surprised that the user Superdandy00 has not given any explanation regarding the revert of my removal of the links, but I will wait a couple of days before I do more editing on this article, to give the user a chance of commenting on this discussion thread. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article looks good now, just a few more external links and facts would give a more detailed article. Since Ulflarsen has started so well on this article, maybe he can add some more facts to improve the article? --Snorre-09 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the external links not needed, the article now has the same amount of links as on the version in Wikipedia on Bokmål/Riksmål and Nynorsk, that should be more than enough. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of removing the useful links of the article, maybe it's time to continue with another article as you describes in your profile. --Snorre-09 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Add back more detailed information about the artist and his work.--Superdandy00 (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to be used to market this little known Norwegian artist, and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I have removed links that clearly is used for marketing purpose and then my edits have been reversed without discussion. I will inform administrators about what I believe is abuse of Wikipedia for commercial reasons. Ulflarsen (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding back relevant facts from the Norwegian newspaper, Stavanger Aftenblad, and the artists own gallery, this is not advertising as I see it. Perhaps Ulflarsen can contribute something instead of deleting everything.--Superdandy00 (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is quite clearly adding external links that is not needed, the only reason they make sense is to promote the artist, and Wikipedia is not a tool for marketing. The same links has been deleted on the Norwegian Nynorsk and Bokmål/Riksmål version of the same article and should be deleted here as well, the two external links I let stay in my last edit should be more than enough. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Have removed content not referenced

I have removed content that did not have references, similar has been done on the Norwegian Nynorsk and Bokmål/Riksmål version. Any content added need to have good references, as is the rule on Wikipedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Norwegian Wikipedia spilling over into English Wikipedia

There are continued edit warring on this article at Norwegian Wikipedia. I would propose that someone carefully edited the article, while looking at its history. I don't like whats happen in relation to this article, especially the edit warring, but it is definitely not according to {{blp}}, or core content policies like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jeblad (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit warring, on the contrary it is someone trying to use Wikipedia for commercial reasons. A lot of content and links regarding a most obscure person is posted and most of the administrators involved in this issue agree in that the article had content not referenced and thus removing such content was needed. The two signatures behind the unsourced content pushing has also both given legal threats to other contributors and they both edit only this article, and a few others connected to it. Jeblad is the single long-time user supporting the two, against a number of experienced contributors on the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusations that the article used for commercial purposes is very serious and evidence must be submitted. The article is / was content with references and links on the same level as the corresponding pages. So it is strange that this article gets so overwhelming attention. In this case I do agree with Jeblad. --Snorre-09 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence submitted. Loads of links, no references. The contributors connected with the article (Superdandy00 and Snorre-09) almost exclusively contribute to this article. So this is a very clear case, no edit warring, but a straight example of abuse of Wikipedia for commercial reasons. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed documentation of articles in the largest newspaper in the region in Norway? Stavanger Aftenblad is the regions largest newspaper. Removed participation in a fundraiser that collected over NOK 200 mill to work among refugees? He donated art for the 2010 fundraiser the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation run for "Flyktningehjelpen", an organization involved in relief work among refugees. Do you think references are a merely technical feature? Not enclosed in <ref>-tags so it isn't a reference? Documentation is about making the sources available, technical measures is only for formatting. Or is it simply that you are part of the same on-going warring that has lasted since 2007? Sorry but I can't see any "straight example of abuse of Wikipedia for commercial reasons", but I can see someone acting on behalf of other. Jeblad (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have content and references for it, then include it, but remember that Wikipedia is not a link farm, which was how the two contributors acted, as can clearly be seen from this diff. If you have contributors only adding content and for years working on one article, across 3 different language versions of Wikipedia aiming to promote a little known artist I would call that a straight example of abuse of Wikipedia for commercial reasons. Regarding your accusation that I act on behalf of others that is correct, and the entity I act on behalf of has a name with 9 letters, that starts with W and ends with pedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The most striking thing to observe on several of the projects are the act of «Ulflarsen» and «Orland». Jeblad (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As this is Wikipedia, anyone can see for herself regarding Jeblads statement above and here are the contributions of «Ulflarsen» and «Orland», compare that to «Superdandy00» and «Snorre-09». While the two first contributors are editing on a wide range of topics, the two last contributors almost entirely put their effort into editing on Stian Heimlund Skjæveland. And there is of course in principle nothing wrong in that by itself, if one follow the rules Wikipedia has for adding content. As I have shown earlier, that is however not the case, the article was filled up with both content without good sources, or sources at all, and lots of links. And the pattern is similar for the article about Stian Heimlund Skjæveland in Nynorsk and Bokmål/Riksmål.

My reasons for engaging in this article is that I try my best to help enforce the policy that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, that content should be relevant for the topic and have good sources, and together with others I have managed to remove both excessive use of links and content not backed up by good sources, or not of interest in a biography article about an artist, anyone checking on my edits both here and on Nynorsk and Bokmål/Riksmål will easily see that. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

References

New text have got references. --Rochus.II (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal CV removed per Wikipedia:SOURCES. - 4ing (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)