User talk:Dnordfors

Hello Dnordfors and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hi! You should know that it is against Wikipedia policies to edit where you have a conflict of interest. This particularly means you should not create your own autographical article, and you should not cite yourself, or otherwise edit in an unduly self-serving manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind you to not edit articles were you have a conflict of interest. That would include all articles about the concepts and neologism you yourself claim to have created, in particular Innovation journalism and Innovation communication system. Continuing to do so may lead to blocks or bans. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFuture - Innovation journalism is not a neologism, suggested reason for deleting it. You ignored a comment by another editor showing it is not a neologism. Instead you said insulting things and suggested the article should be removed due to my involvement in it. I have no recollection of earlier dialogue between us. I really don't know what the real problem is. I intend to find out, which is why I have asked for Dispute Resolution, because I find it difficult having a levelheaded discussion with someone writing under pseudonym who is calling me names. --dnordfors (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I told you the first time the 10 September 2012, the second time today. I have not insulted you or called your names in any way whatsoever. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh No! Not *another* vanity piece by Nordfors" is an insult. I will accept an apology. --dnordfors (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

In regards to this edit [1]:

There seems to be some misunderstandings here.

Sources are not notable. Topics are; see WP:N.
The question is if this topic is notable, and if it deserves it's own article. That is essentially what this AfD is here to establish.
To establish notability you need reliable third-party sources. As we see above, these are missing in regards to this topic.

I hope this made the issue clearer. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not clarify why you said "Oh No, *not another* vanity piece by Nordfors" or why I should not be insulted by it. Your Explanation is instead a continuation of a discussion we are having on the AfD page - please don't spill over from there. I am commenting on your allegation there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Innovation_journalism (sorry - forgot the signature when I wrote this a few minutes ago. Here it comes) --dnordfors (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wasted your time in attempting constructive discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said I expected an apology for the rude and unnecessary comment about the "vanity page". I mean what I say, I have been willing to accept that apology. Instead you answer with a sarcasm. --dnordfors (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the topics you bring up here under "Explanation" you already brought up on the AfD page. I have been answering them there. --dnordfors (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

I have asked for dispute resolution of this matter. Follow the discussion on the dispute resolution page. I am posting this link here as well as on OpenFuture's user comment page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=submit --dnordfors (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to keep Innovation Journalism article

The Innovation Journalism appears to meet WP notability requirements. But if you want to make sure it passes the AfD, the best thing to do is to add material to the article that is based on sources that are wrritten by independent sources, such as reporters or other academics (other than yourself). Take the sources you listed in the AfD: Find 1 or 2 key points about IJ that each source makes, then put those statement into the article (do not violate copyright by copying directly: you must re-word). For each new sentence: include a footnote citing that source (see WP:Citing sources). That should be sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Noleander - thanks for looking into this, I will proceed to insert the references.--dnordfors (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Afd

Nomination of Innovation communication system for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Innovation communication system is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation communication system until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]