Talk:Peter Nordin/Archive 1

message: I've removed the "ToC" link and added a proper section header to the top debate. Remember that new discussions should have their own section header, and the page will automatically create a table of contents once it reaches 4 headers. -- Kesh 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Headers

message: The "Profile" sections, which is basically the only substantial section of the article, should be broken down into logical subsections. This large monolithic block of text is difficult to deal with. nadav (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Side note: Now that I have a better grasp of how to get around at Wikipedia and find things out, I have discovered that it was Quadell who carried out the disruptive campaigning exercise related to the fair-use image discussion. I apologize for thinking that it was you; I note that you were disturbed at one point that I appeared to be demonizing you. That was a mistake on my part. I honstely thought it was you simply because I did see that you had asked for other opinions. I also note that you did not seem to have had any part in the disruptive behavior of N. BTW: N is still stalking me (and seems to have been joined by W.marsh) making it more difficult to participate in Wikipedia. User:Kviki is still blocked as a sockpuppet, even though the facts never warrented blocking.) --Rogerfgay 09:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: User:N - Thanks to you, I've studied Wikipedia rules regarding Wikipedia:Harassment more closely (as well as the one's on sockpuppetry, and even understand how sockpuppetry accusations are used in harassment). I want you to know that I'm keeping a record, related to your stalking behavior and other disruptions. It would be better for all concerned, if you would stop; that includes adding tags in order to follow up with destructive editing on pages that I've worked on. --Rogerfgay 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My guess was that you'd fight it. That's why I'm keeping a record. --Rogerfgay 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning to N

message: User:N - You seem to be acting on any excuse you can find to destruct and disrupt. Such also seems to be the case regarding your most recent deletion (containing comment with more to come threat) from the article as well, claiming a Wikipedia:Embedded lists argument. May I suggest that if you want to become a productive editor, spend more time studying the rules and trying to follow them rather than simply going for quantity. The article is constructed in prose rather than in embedded list form. --Rogerfgay 10:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: N is correct in that articles should not be composed mostly of lists. It would be better to turn the important parts of the list into prose and integrate that into the body. nadav (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't mind if you guys would test these ideas on the many other notable people entries at Wikipedia first. I started by looking at existing Wikipedia examples, and took a representative one as my original template. This article is similar to many others that have not had problems with acceptance. At the very least, perhaps you could take the others through the first few steps before coming back to this one. That would help maintain consistency in the form of articles and editing practices. Also, it might allow you the opportunity to get feedback from someone besides me. That could work as a real quality control mechanism. --Rogerfgay 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  BTW: Please look at the description of embedded lists before making a judgement about that. The article is not composed of embedded lists. If you have a problem with listed information (which is quite common on Wikipedia), don't rest it on N's embedded lists argument. The use of embedding in the article is correct according to the MOS.  --Rogerfgay 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  N's argument re: embedded lists has to do with Wikipedia:Embedded_lists. --Rogerfgay 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Embedded List

message: I came to give input on RfC but looking at article and talk page, I do not think the RfC's or issues in the RfCs are number one priority.  The article is almost unreadable in present form.  There is much to do.  There is the long long paragraph, distracting wikilinking, many names and accomplishments crammed together like writing up the career finishes for a horse at the race track.  What stands out in the article is about Elvis and Priscilla because it more noticeable since is one of few words not wikilinked and the image to go with is missing.
There is no need for RfC about a cleanup tag.  The article needs cleanup.  The RfCs are not easy to follow.  And are the only comments made so far by involved editors?  Contentious argument in the areas reserved for RfC will discourage many uninvolved editors from leaving feedback.Venado 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I tried to get the other editors to treat the RfC area properly - but just as in everything else, they refused and continued a contentious dispute there. --Rogerfgay 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from uninvolved editor

message: This is a dispute about inclusion / deletion of a section listing corporate spin-offs based on Peter Nordin's academic work.
Note: The list has been deleted from the page, but can be viewed through history; e.g. 18:45, 27 June 2007 and before.
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
* The fact that this individual is involved in commercialization is part of who he is, and the impact he's had on the world that makes him especially noteworthy. Rogerfgay 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well no, it was becoming a list of external links with no other information.  The page you refer to offers an excellent example of Prose versus List with no content - please read it.  Briefly describing why these spin-offs were created and what they achieved (using appropriate sources of course) would easily make prose out of that section. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Inclusion of Corporate Spin-offs section

message: This is a dispute about inclusion / deletion of a section listing publications based Peter Nordin's academic work.
Note: The list has been deleted from the page, but can be viewed through history; e.g. 17:55, 27 June 2007 and before.
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
* A bibliography of peer-reviewed scholarly articles is relevant to the biography of an academic. Rogerfgay 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Inclusion of Publications section

message: This is a dispute about inclusion of a sections tag.
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
* The page is already appropriately divided into 6 (or more) relevant sections. Rogerfgay 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: use of sections tag

message: This is a dispute about inclusion of a cleanup-resume tag.
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
* The subject of the page is a notable person, with content related to the reason that he is notable. Rogerfgay 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: use of cleanup-resume tag