User talk:GVU

Welcome here. Your newest articles were pretty good. Punkmorten (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your move of the college, because it is not a university by Swedish law, and it therefore does not matter what the institution calls itself in English. There are different criteria for colleges and universities in Sweden, and at the moment Södertörn högskola does not meet the Swedish requirements of a university. --Axt (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it does officially call itself Södertörn University in English[1] and is also referred to as such in the English language. We cannot invent our own name in English for the institution, per Wikipedia:No original research. It does not matter whether it is called a university in Swedish, I would also note that "university college" is not actually an English equvialent of "högskola" but a very rough translation used by most such institutions in Scandinavia (but not by Södertörn). --GVU (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree as much as you want, Södertörn högskola is not a university. The appropriate term to use is college, community college, or, in the worst case, "university college". Södertörn College only calls itself a "university" in English, but not in Swedish, and it does so because it wants to give foreigners the impression that it is a research-oriented and doctor's degree awarding institution with university status, which it isn't. I do not know why Swedish politicians do not stop the college from pretending to be something thit isn't, but it certainly shouldn't be named a university contrary to better knowledge. --Axt (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the right place to promote your opposition to the English name of Södertörn University. Actually, Södertörn is rather research-oriented and it has doctoral candidates (whose doctorates are formally awarded by other universities in the end). GVU (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo of Södertörn University.gif. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GVU, you've just violated the three revert rule [2] on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. I realize that you may not have been aware of this rule so rather than reporting you, I thought I'd warn you. You should self-revert your latest edit to that page.radek (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

You are in error. I've only reverted three times (the first edit was not a revert). Besides, you are engaged in an edit war yourself. GVU (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--I waver on this, but currently find myself in sympathy with your view on the name for the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences‎ article, so didn't get a chance to make my argument there. I missed the recent discussion on whether to rename the article. Regardless, I think we should take a breath and give this time before coming back to it. It's a perennial conflict, and so gets very annoying. I think that it's clear from the opening sentence of the article what the real name is and what the alternatives are, so I don't think there's a POV problem there.

I'm not sure what a decent waiting period is. I'd personally wait a minimum of 6 months before re-opening the issue. User:Cretog8 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the situation will not be any different in 6 months, but I guess the case can rest for a while now (6 months is a very long time at Wikipedia, I'd say it would be ok to start a new discussion some time after the summer - August?) . What is very unfortunate for Wikipedia (at least this edition, other editions use the correct name of the prize) is that there is an active lobby which is very committed to associate the prize with the Nobel prizes at any cost and has managed to have it their way, and defend it very aggressively. GVU (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I too am very sympathetic to your cause.. you can see my promotion of the rename for NPOV reasons in April. I too think we should wait. On the other hand, I think Wikipedia's naming policy is "do what reliable sources do" and the reliable sources are using a POV name. I intend to send commentaries to major news sources asking them to change their internal policy on naming and then hope for a wiki change after the 2009 announcements with a more accurate name... --kittyKAY4 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a good idea. GVU (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • And I intend to send commentaries to Megan Fox asking her to consider a clothing-optional lifestyle. I've got at least as good a chance as you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.2.107 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience shall --on this twenty-first day of the eight month in the year two-thousand-and-nine-- be awarded to GVU who has shown extraordinary patience in the face of turmoil. Mootros (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit to the Barack Obama article. Please stop your POV-pushing; otherwise, you may get blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your POV pushing. GVU (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pusing my POV; I could be anti-Obama, who knows? When I'm writing the encyclopedia, I write it from NPOV. The "controversial" thing you inserted is a personal commentary piece; it is not a reliable source. AdjustShift (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculous claim. GVU (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your edit warring at the Edit warring noticeboard. Feel free to respond there. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2009 (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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Södertörn University logo2.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 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]