User talk:Norschweden

Alice Cooper

Well... Yeah, the band has its own page, but they are still part of the peronal Alice Coopr "used", band and solo project use the same template, and all band albums are also on the solo projekt page and btw Alice cooper still uses band songs for solo project compilation albums. so ist wrong to exclute them from the Alice cooper personal page. also its wrong to exclute the current band members from the template Norschweden (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I will be copying this to your talk page to make sure that you see it. And I will be reverting the data back, but again, I am going to give it time to make sure that you see this.

When I said that the issue has been discussed, I hope that you did not think that I implied that you and I had discussed it. Obviously, we didn't. I meant that the good people at Wikipedia had already debated this issue. That is why there are 3 pages and not just 1. In fact, I didn't even agree with the some of the final results that they came up with, and I thought that there should be a 4th page, but it is what the consensus arrived at - which is why I reverted your rename.

The problem, specific to Alice Cooper, is because Vincent Furnier was not a member of The Alice Cooper Band after 1973. Nor was Vincent known as Alice Cooper during his tenure with the band. So, when you say that Alice says that it is the same band, he may have said it but there is no way it can be true. Notice how I wrote that, The Alice Cooper Band, which is different than Alice Cooper or Alice Cooper's band.

You have the original band. You have the man. And you have the solo act.

Guys like Rob Zombie advocate that their biographies be separated into the business page and the personal page to end the confusion. Meaning, what has Rob Zombie/Rob Cummings been up to, and what has band known as Rob Zombie been up to. It happens with many solo artists, where their personal information gets bogged down with the business information. But, whatever brought on the discussion all those years ago, the various Cooper pages have been discussed and separated.

The Alice Cooper Band is a separate entity from the personnel that is used in Alice Cooper's band. They do not get listed on the personnel page - they were never personnel. That is why they have their own page, and that is also why more recent 'members' like Ryan Roxie do not get listed on the The Alice Cooper Band page.

I don't have the links to the discussions, nor do I know how long WP keeps them. I just know that the issue was discussed. It is how it is for a reason.

Now, onto a related issue:

The template does not need to maintain a list of current members. The current "band" is more like a Broadway play. It is not a conventional band where everyone is an equal and has input. You have Alice, and you have his employees. They all follow orders. They all do the same thing every night. If someone gets sick, quits, or just needs a night off, the show goes on without missing a beat. Someone else will simply walk in and replace them. I also wanted to mention that you did not include any of the non-musical stage performers. The current show has a list of stage performers. It is really unfair that they do not get credited in more places even though they get paid the same scale as Nita Strauss.

And there you have it in a nutshell. Kellymoat (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the band has its own site and that is good, but they played the songs and albums cooper is known for, and i think when we list their albums and hit on coopers solo page, they should be noticed on the personal page because they dont have an own one. i think the perfect way would be if we would add a second color to their strip on the personal page and add more information. and in the template i still think thats no reason to delete them Norschweden (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am going to start by going totally off topic by saying - Guns 'N Roses plays a song by the Paul McCartney band Wings called Live And Let Die. Does this mean that we should include Axl Rose as a member of The Beatles? Of course it doesn't.

The reason I bring that up is because it really doesn't matter who plays who's songs. Particular to Alice Cooper and The Alice Cooper Band, you have it backwards. Alice Cooper's solo act is performing songs that The Alice Cooper Band made famous.

Alice Cooper (the man) did not exist until after Vincent Furnier left the band. The original band continued to play those songs without Vincent. Vincent went 'solo'. He also played those songs. Members of the original band should not be listed on the page of the solo act's personnel. And, to take this a step further... The original band got back together for a couple shows in 2012. None of that information is included in the solo's act page. Nor did the reformed band play songs from the solo act. These things are completely separate entities. They should not be included.

I know that it is confusing to grasp all of the different Alice Cooper variants, but that is the exactly why we need to keep them separate. It just adds to the confusion if we associate the wrong people on the wrong page. The solo act is completely separate from the original band.

Kellymoat (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

i see two possibilitys, frist on is to seperate everything, that means also to do two templates and put the band albums in acs article unter "with ACBand" or we do a half seperation with one template, one peronnal page but two articles like now, but the version before my edit is a mess and shouldnt be reestablished again Norschweden (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The template and pages are separate issues with separate rules. The pages themselves represent separate entities, which is why later today I am going to go revert and redirect them back to the consensus opinion (ie, the original band does not get listed on the solo personnel page). The templates have a little more leeway than pages do, and they (like the pages) do need some cleanup-editing, but the solo personnel do not get listed on the template due to their status as employees.

Thank you for listening. Consider this issue closed.

Kellymoat (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Metallica markup

@Norschweden: @4TheWynne: The hidden comments on Metallica are part of Wiki markup. Please see Help:Wiki markup Invisible text (comments). 4TheWynne is correct in his edits. Hidden comments that can only be seen in the edit window are part of Wikipedia's instructions to editors. I will also leave this note on each of your talk pages. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Norschweden. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Policium listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Policium. Since you had some involvement with the Policium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ComplexRational (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You're the edit warrior.

If anyone is edit warring, it's you.

Corkythehornetfan set the template up with Mulvaney in the dual role, and all I did was reset it after you keep changing it (because I happen to agree with his version).

So you are going against the wishes of 2 editors - Corky, and myself.

So please stop with this nonsense.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

1. no i'm not, i'm restoring the status quo prior to your disruptive edits 2. it doesn't matter if two people want it, fact is, there is a disagreement and no consensus at all, so satus quo has to remain till a consensus in reached, please read the rules Norschweden (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Umm...the status quo was there before you went on your tirade. You don't get to set the status quo, and by the way, you are in violation of WP:3RR, which in and of itself is a reason for a block. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

no status quo means before the controversial edit was made, which is what i restored all the time Norschweden (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason not to block you now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

i only restored status quo untill a consensus is found, you can see in the history that the controversiial edit wasn't old, and the former version had much of suppor. Norschweden (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios (division)

Your recent editing history at Walt Disney Studios (division) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Blue Sky Studios is the primary operating subsidiary of 20th Century Fox Animation. "of cause the official company website is much more valid and up to date than a news article". The news articles is not "much more valid and up to date than a news article" as a website may not keep up with corporate actions. Per WP:SOURCES, primary sources are NOT more valid than a news article. As I pointed out there is no listing for Marvel Entertainment, which we know still operates, at the Disney website's list of business (which lists Marvel Studios but it was separated from the rest of Marvel), but it still reports to Disney's CEO. Thus it isn't completely accurate. At waltdisneystudios.com's business list it shows Blue Sky's logo and after you click on it. The description states "...Twentieth Century Fox Animation (including Blue Sky Studios)..." Spshu (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Xbox Game Studios

Hi Norschweden, in regards to this edit of yours on Xbox Game Studios. The notes column was added very recently by an IP editor. It contains very trivial information (such as etymologies) and is, for the most part, unsourced. This is not the kind of content we need in tables meant to be concise; if anything, the notes should relate only to XGS's parenthood or Microsoft's ownership of the studio. You didn't provide an edit summary with your reversion so I couldn't tell what your reasoning was for including unsourced trivia. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 08:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2021

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically File:Proud Boys flag.png, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

as long as it's on wikipedia it can also be in that article, if it's not free it should be removed entirely and not just from this article Norschweden (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-free images can only be used when they enhance a reader's understanding. So there are selected pages where that flag would be appropriate (namely the Proud Boys article). But on a list article, it serves only as decoration, and we do not allow non-free images in lists at all. (see WP:NFLISTS). --Masem (t) 23:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the link you posted? it's justified by it to put the flag in there Norschweden (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And it's not just decoration, it a flag of a terrorist organisation, it SHOULD be in there Norschweden (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ther are dozens of sources calling it terrorism. it's active reversal of history that happens here on wikipedia, to benefint terrorists. Norschweden (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 11, 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FellowMellow (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Scholz cabinet

Hi Norschweden, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1060348524 seems to be unnecessarily direct. The entire discussion at Talk:Scholz cabinet seems to be unnecessarily focused on behavior rather than article content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Amrullah Saleh. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Amazon Prime Video original films, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thriller and Horror. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four. Issued for violating the WP:3RR twice now and not willing to discuss civilly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constance Baker Motley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latino.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

New message from IanDBeacon

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wagner Group rebellion § Denis Kapustin telegram source. IanDBeacon (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mellk (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)