Jump to content

User talk:LFOlsnes-Lea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!


On "Welcoming message from Wikipedia"

Thanks a lot, Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia hugely positive and I enjoy the new policies on making it an ideal choice for the World population on accessing encyclopedic information. There is no doubt that the new strategies of entering a kind of "masters of articles" people into play have helped "more than money can speak"! Thanks for being Wikipedia. L. ("Lenny") F. Olsnes-Lea on Wikipedia welcoming message, 2012/06/23 CEST, LFOlsnes-Lea 20:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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) 01:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Existence of God are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. New editors often misunderstand the purpose of these pages. Your posts are mainly forum style posts that would be great on a web forum discussing the arguments, but not here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to add your "Goodbye to you, mister" on the Talk:Scientology page, as well as some of your other comments on that page, are rather likely violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, and, regarding the pyramid image, possibly WP:OR. To paraphrase what another party has already said on that talk page, we would have no particular objections to adding an image of a pyramid if we were to see indications from reliable sources, possibly internal or external in this case, which clearly and explicitly state that the pyramid image is one which is widely used in Scientology. To date, you have not done so, and it would probably be a violation of our OR policy to include it without such sources to indicate that it is of sufficient importance and relevance to the article to merit inclusion.
Also, in general, it really is standard form to add new sections to the bottom of article talk pages, not the top. If you were to hit the "New section" tab at the top of the talk page, new sections would be added to the bottom of the talk page automatically. Sections at the top of talk pages are almost always the oldest sections of discussion which have not yet been archived, and many people might get the impression that these new sections you add are also comparatively old, and not respond to them, or perhaps have difficulty finding them. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the WP:OR, I cite: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." And indeed, my idea is easily accessible, it is directly related and it is directly supporting the general idea of the article presented. As you then know, I disagree! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea under "Arguments for God" may also satisfy a large number of people and by suppressing this idea, you deny many people information to a very important topic for them, potentially! The very green pyramid is also on the back of the binding of three Dianetics books! I hope you are able to check data, not being unfair!!! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments regarding OR, it is not so much that material supporting the idea must be easily accessible, because as per WP:BURDEN, which I also suggest you read, it is incumbent on the person seeking to add information that they provide the information supporting the material they seek to add themselves. Regarding your statement that you disagree, please read WP:POV. Your personal opinions, however deeply held, are in no way sufficient grounds for changing any article content. Nor are mine, nor are anyone else's.
Regarding your comments about the "Arguments for God," we are in no way "suppressing" information, as you claim above. What is required for content is not only that the idea exist, but that there be material specifically supporting the content which you wish to add which can be found in sources which meet our requirements for reliable sources as per WP:RS. I believe it would very much be in your interests to read that page as well. And, unfortunately, particularly regarding matters of religious beliefs, just about any suggestion anyone can make, or ever has made, could be seen as being potentially "very important" to them. This includes the sometimes bizarre ideas on non-notable websites, and in some non-notable books in the "New Age"/"occult" field, regarding, for instance, Jesus having been a time traveller from the future who was sent back to ensure the "right" future was achieved. For many such topics, WP:FRINGE also applies, and I believe you might well benefit from reading that page as well.
I also note that your recent edit to assisted suicide, which was apparently quickly reverted, probably did not meet the standards for linguistic tone of the project, as can be seen in our manual of style, which can be found at WP:MOS. I'm not myself sure that the source you linked to meets RS standards either, although I admittedly didn't check it very closely.
Regarding the pyramid being on the back cover of books, I have to say that that information, in and of itself, probably is not sufficient basis for anything to be included anywhere. Without in any way patronizing you, someone might just as easily say that barcode information should be included in articles here as well. If you can find a reliable source as per WP:RS which specifically states that the pyramid is significant to Scientology, possibly also indicating specifically why it is significant, that is really the kind of information we are looking for.
If I might, I think that you may very well have useful and significant material which you wish to add, but that you might not be sufficiently familiar with the processes of wikipedia to be able to do so without at least occasionally starting some controversy. If that is the case, then you might well wish to perhaps receive some sort of mentor as per WP:MENTOR to help you present yourself and your proposals in the best way possible. People have noted repeatedly that this can be a difficult environment to enter into, because of the multitude of existing guidelines and policies which might be relevant. Some sort of mentorship agreement with a more experienced editor might very much help reduce such problems. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Your recent edits to Talk:Scientology make it rather clear that you are yourself operating from a very clear bias or POV on the topic, and you seem to also display a clear failure to assume good faith as per WP:AGF of all those who have reviewed the material before you and their motivations. Such comments in general do not meet talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG, and might be seen by some as being extremely problematic themselves. Your most recent edit criticized others for a source which you, apparently on your own, decided is unfair. You have not, however, so far as I could see, produced any evidence to the contrary, which would be in accord with WP:BURDEN, nor have you sought any outside comments, such as could be done by filing a request for comment as per WP:RFC or by bringing your concerns to the appropriate message boards, or even left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology. Under the circumstances, such comments, which apparently unilaterally criticize things without offering alternatives or seeking help in finding them, could be seen as being disruptive editing as per WP:DISRUPTIVE or tendentious editing as per WP:TE. I very strongly urge you to read all the pages I have linked to, to give you a better idea of what sort of conduct is sought here, and what sort of means to resolve concerns are available. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An answer has been placed almost instantly on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology page. Thus, I claim FULL compliance still as I have little interest in doing anything else than to see through articles of quality "as I also have knowledge to bring"!!! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology case

Any current or future editor who makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;

To edit only through a conventional internet service provider and not through any form of proxy configuration;

To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved administrator may of their own volition impose Discretionary sanctions on any editor who, after warning, fails to comply with the letter or spirit of these instructions.

Please, let me add that I insist on editing as much as the threshold allows me to. If I edit as an IP that is my choice. As I see it, I've edited articles "with good faith and quality of article in heart and mind"! There is no way that I will change my editing behaviour unless the objections raised are clear and factual, that I have insulted people or violated in that strong sense people's rights and senses toward the article of quality. I have absolutely NO wish to engage in petty quarrel. And, finally, in this instance, I really don't know the charges brought against me! (Unless from the above, is it WP:BURDEN or WP:OR or could these ever truly be breaches of that kind! As I see it, this goes against other people and that I have a clear conscience! Please, do not mess up! As before, you can, at your discretion, BAN me as I take it head on!!!)
By the way, I perceive no conflict toward the article itself. No, as I add intelligence and decrease stupidity these people start these disturbances to what would otherwise be a calm and decent place! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of putting this here is so that you know about it and aren't banned. Are there "any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to" any Scientology pages? And if you edit as an IP those edits are still considered as yours. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Wrongfully inserted text has been removed. Sorry!) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no biased interest in Scientology other than making a true article, something I find you are committed to as well, inherently! That is, my commitment toward this article is the same as yours. Other than this, thanks for the information. Also, thanks for a quick clarification! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given your own edits of today, I believe that very few people other than yourself would come to that conclusion. You seem to rather regularly conduct yourself on article talk pages, and here as well, in a way which indicates that you clearly support Scientology, presumably as some form of adherent. You also today, to my amazement, described on Talk:Scientology the use of the image of the cross as being in some way "condoning torture." In all honesty, it is extremely hard to see on what basis you could jump to such conclusions. It seems to indicate that those who use the cross as a symbol, specifically Christians, somehow condone its use. In fact, they don't. They are recognizing that the torture undergone on the cross was involved in their redemption, which is an entirely different matter. As per the material linked to above, it is possible for sanctions to be applied to editors on the basis of acting out of accord with WP:TPG as well. I very strongly urge you to read that page and related pages regarding conduct guidelines over. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no Jesus in Scientology and as we speak of the Cross, the Opposition, the lunatic critics, we or I think, intend to say something else as Scientology adds the Cross to its other religious symbols! I wish to destroy the possibility for this by the opposition, the critics, thus destroying the possibility for this issue to arise, and therefore I do service to both Scientology and Christianity! Thanks! The Cross as torture instrument, [1]! Still, I am being honest and other people need to care for themselves. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also happen to know about Arne Naess and his recognised text on discussion guidelines, here by "Communication and Argument" that is

1.Avoid tendentious irrelevance
Examples: Personal attacks, claims of opponents' motivation, explaining reasons for an argument.
2.Avoid tendentious quoting
Quotes should not be edited regarding the subject of the debate.
3.Avoid tendentious ambiguity
Ambiguity can be exploited to support criticism.
4.Avoid tendentious use of straw men
Assigning views to the opponent that he or she does not hold.
5.Avoid tendentious statements of fact
Information put forward should never be untrue or incomplete, and one should not withhold relevant information.
6.Avoid tendentious tone of presentation

Examples: irony, sarcasm, pejoratives, exaggeration, subtle (or open) threats.[14]

, having, at this point in time, had an interest in Philosophy for over 14 years, continuously reading. This is an additional notice. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

LFOlsnes-Lea, I see that other editors have spoken to you previously about some of your behavior at Scientology and related articles, in particular your evident promotion of the Scientology agenda and failure to abide by the talk page guidelines. I also see that you've been made of aware of the Arbitration Committee's decision on Scientology-related articles, which authorizes uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on editors who repeatedly fail to adhere to Wikipedia's standards.
As you have continued this pattern of behavior after these discussions and warnings, unless I see some substantial evidence of improved behavior I will be imposing a topic ban barring you from editing articles related to Scientology. Please take this warning seriously, and read up on discretionary sanctions as well as Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures.--Cúchullain t/c 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That you put "your evident promotion of the Scientology agenda" on me is indeed a strawman, a logical fallacy, that's rude to put on people. No, I've only been hard on pursuing facts and hard on separating Scientology and (i.e., "vs.") The Church of Scientology as much as people would like the Bible accurately discussed (and the Church kept separate and out of the question). So hence the "improved behaviour", I've now stopped editing the Scientology Talk-page and sure I take your warning to me seriously and I'll read up. Thanks. Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Code of conduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vienna convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, I'm trying...! How do they look afterall? And are they really automatic redirects? I want an automatic one! Please... *confused* LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, the "manual" lies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_convention_(diplomatic_relations) . Any good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, this issue has been solved by people over at the "Redirect Project" (for the automatic transition to happen for the proper page to load). So all good! The "Redirect Project lies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects . Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for the Raw Watchlist

Why can't one make a kind of passive option for the Watchlist so that some pages are monitored actively (you get reports from them) while others are merely mentioned on your watchlist (where you can easily make them active again), a kind of passive mode on "Remove/make passive" titles button? You like it? I'd like you to consider it and I post this idea here for a while until I reach proper people to chat with for it... Good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Assisted suicide. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. See WP:TPG, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:NOTFORUM. Talk page are meant for improvement of articles, not for general discussion of topics. Don't add links to your personal blog. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted! And let me add that this is the direct message concerning Talk:Assisted suicide and that the above claim that I "advertise, promote or soapbox", not valid for raising the quality of the article, this Talkpage of Assisted Suicide, where one perhaps should contribute with information... Alright. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little protest in saying what the conflict has been about:
I'm accused of "soapboxing, promoting, advertising" despite trying to help an entire group in hardship "all around the planet" (outside the sickness of worshipping sickness because I am E. O. Wilson 50%/50%, the criticism). So here are at least two very important references for the Earth to achieve progress in terms of humanity:
http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/06/implausible-slippery-slope-argument.html , attacking the most "humane" argument the opposition has.
http://philosophyblog777.blogspot.no/2012/06/assisted-suicide-final-argument-pro.html , lining up an entire array of "Cruise Missiles" directed against the opposition to assisted suicide as part of legislation in every country because it is now most certainly true that there is something perverse going on in the World! Alright? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My New Speciality: Political Controversies - And very good at it too

The Biological Unity Will Have to Be Achieved by Mixing Hierarchy and Colonscopy the PM Announces to NRK!
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea [on Facebook] on Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 23:48 CEST.
‎It (abomination? Soon out of the Catholic Church too?): We are cheating a bit with our famous Norwegian chef. The message: If the political rectification of Norway is to be *100%* (steel-percent) successful then the hierarchical must into, literally, the colonoscopy! "The oil is ready (and we have a lot of that)! Next?!!!" (It's a sting...)
Id est: the hierarchical MUST be combined with colonscopy for obtaining biological unity, the highest DREAM of Norway! Also a slight reference to Ayn Rand's The Unknown Ideal, but freely associated so that it fits in!!!
My serious Bayes' prediction is that this will achieve highest priority within the next 6 months and that most leaders will have "become one" within 10 months after that! Children, of course, this time will have to be "melded" later... Finally: YOU MUST UNDERSTAND!!!
Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayes .Thomas Bayes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.orgThomas Bayes (/ˈbeɪz/; c. 1701 – 7 April 1761)[1][2][note a] was an English mathematician and Presbyterian minister, known for having formulated a specific case of the theorem that bears his name: Bayes' theorem. Bayes never published what would eventually become his most famous accomplishment; his ...
Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem .Bayes' theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org
Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability .Bayesian probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org
Bayes is probably most used, but for some calculus the (more advanced) Stochastic processes will have to be used. We're now waiting for the message from our leader, the Prime Minister, I hear on my ear! Wait, wait... coming...
The Ad Fontaines strikes me as necessary. I give you the original(é). A rare instance of Norwegian first (by Norwegian Wikip.): Litt attåt det alvorlige - Ein morsomheit Og vi jukser litt med Ingrid Espelid. Her kommer: Hvis den politiske rektifikasjonen skal lykkes 100% (stålprosent) i Norge så må jo det hierarkiske inn i, så å si ganske bokstavelig, kolonskopien! "Oljen, ja du vet, er klar! Neste?!!!"
Url: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brukerdiskusjon:LFOlsnes-LeaBrukerdiskusjon:LFOlsnes-Lea - Wikipedia no.wikipedia.org
Encouraging the political followers: While you're waiting for the political miracle in Norway: D:REAM :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtvT-H4Du9A - D:Ream - Things Can Only Get Better !
"I sometimes lose myself into you..." Dream! Dream!
NRK is: http://www.nrk.no/info/ - "known as one of the broadcasters with the most esteem in the World, Chinese included!"
www.nrk.no
NRK gir deg Norges største multimediatilbud. Video, podcast og nyheter på nett. Se TV-programmer direkte eller i opptak. Hør nettradio når du vil...
So the challenge is ON: Do you mind competin' a bit? What's yours or something? Anything happenin'? :-D Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this

My first (at least by my report and outside a redirect page of Vienna Convention as Diplomatic Relations) I've made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCBE_code_of_conduct - The CCBE Code of Conduct page! Great or what? Well, well, I am a bit proud of it! Thanks. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CCBE code of conduct

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CCBE code of conduct requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jonathanfu (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal note: I have contested the deletion of the above mentioned page. But that they have deleted it still the same! I've tried my best! I have a clear conscience! Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This whole "process" reminds me how stupid the World can given people's ability to "spell words". First of all, the legal standing of the CCBE document of Code of Conduct is as critical to Europe as the ECHR and I happen to think, despite these copyright fixated people that this document is released on par with (non-commercial) copying-rights of the entire ECHR body of laws wherever they exist! Finally, I hope this idiot behaviour by parts of Wikipedia will punish them fairly HARD!!! What adolescent behaviour!!! Secondly, there's the funniness of how parts of the Republican Party in USA "offered" their precious political program for "100$ a sheet"! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CCBE

You said:

(Oh, my God, my kleptomania again...) By direct presumption of CCBE as a public service organisation, I've taken the freedom to copy and paste, without explicit permission, (large) parts of the CCBE pdf-document. I hope this is "tolerable".

In a word, No. No it is not tolerable, unless you can show that the material was properly licensed. I do not see a compatible license. [Your signature isn't here, clever person and this clever person is [Sphilbrick].]--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are a public service organisation and then, usually, the documents are also considered free to use! I don't discuss facts other than stating this to you now. --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As they have now deleted the CCBE Code of Conduct Wikipedia that I've started so be it! However, the charge against me is: Under "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_Code_of_conductp1_1306748215.pdf" that I've infringed copyright regulations. How this is to happen from a public service organisation as CCBE, http://www.ccbe.eu/, as I've been thinking that making the document known would progress their mission too, to provide legal system to the population of Europe as much as a copyright permission would be granted directly by default exactly because of this "public service" commitment to the general public. Well, well, as you can see, Wikipedia has come to a different conclusion and has deleted the page that I've created, the "CCBE Code of Conduct". End of story. Let's see what happens next! Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This whole "process" reminds me how stupid the World can given people's ability to "spell words". First of all, the legal standing of the CCBE document of Code of Conduct is as critical to Europe as the ECHR and I happen to think, despite these copyright fixated people that this document is released on par with (non-commercial) copying-rights of the entire ECHR body of laws wherever they exist! Finally, I hope this idiot behaviour by parts of Wikipedia will punish them fairly HARD!!! What adolescent behaviour!!! Secondly, there's the funniness of how parts of the Republican Party in USA "offered" their precious political program for "100$ a sheet"! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatness of Leonard Cohen

Leonard Cohen and the "loaded dice" (Everybody Knows) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5e1oaen-M - Leonard Cohen - Everybody Knows! God dammit! Those dum-dum-bullets, where are they? --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Now, who mentioned Epistemology (such an a**h*le word)? Knowledge, I just say Leonard Cohen for that! I am that good! A point is all I need for wielding the World!" --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life Lessons - Life and Firefox

Life: What is life? HALF! Url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SniOXFhwIZ8 - Eddie Murphy - RAW - Marriage.
Firefox: How fast is Firefox? FAST! because it is HALF! Url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU0b00SVnmI - How to make Mozilla FireFox 150 Times Faster
--LFOlsnes-Lea 14:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Note over Assisted Suicide (Sterbehilfe) - Applied Ethics

A note for a German speaking audience on "Assisted Suicide" (Sterbehilfe), not finished yet, awful to read as it is now, also it's from the democratic side of Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/leonardoolsneslea?ref=profile%7C#!/notes/leonardo-f-olsnes-lea/temporary-title-%C3%BCber-das-frage-der-sterbehilfe-eine-klassische-frage-in-der-ange/278252212285030 . --LFOlsnes-Lea 02:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosa

- That I have reported "American Psycho" to the Vatican and its registry over such for being an abomination of book (among human beings) - "through contacts". The "white" library: http://www.vaticanlibrary.va/home.php?ling=eng&res=1280x1024 and the "black" library: http://asv.vatican.va/
- That I have "followed" the Catholic Church from its two former documents to adding vast bodies of science and honouring scientists (incl. Stephen Hawking) who are with us today! The good sciences start here, for identifying God's ways in nature: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/index.htm
- And a very small point (the smallest?), that I have delivered one defence for Scientology as teachings!
--LFOlsnes-Lea 13:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--LFOlsnes-Lea 13:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Greek landing at Smyrna

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greek landing at Smyrna. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Person

It may now be that I'm considered a public person, justifiably, because of my work and because of World matters!

Public people are usually the med. doctors, the lawyers, some politicians, some artists, some actors, some actresses, all headmasters, all chief editors of newspapers and broadcasters, all professors, some business people and so on. It's a fairly large group of people.

Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea 20:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and "13 Millionen ... Standen Damals" and then I and "6,5 Milliarden ... Standen Damals"

Hitler, once, has gotten known for "Millionen Standen Damals Hinter Mir" on a poster with Money (green notes) "raining down on him". Now, I, me, myself, try a much bigger number "6,5 Milliarden Standen Damals Hinter Mir" and I get nothing? Is it the missing poster, I have to ask? How are you doing? The World is awful!!! --LFOlsnes-Lea 01:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Advocacy of suicide and Assisted suicide

Let me preface this by reminding you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Content should not be comprised of rhetorical questions as your edits appear to be, nor should it be WP:CRYSTALballing about any "possible hidden motives" one side might have.
While I thank you for finally finding sources, none of them support your questions/statements. On Wikipedia, you cannot base addition of content by simply "follow a logical train of thoughts" by looking at data, you must provide sources that say what you are trying to say for you. What you have done is original research and synthesis, both of which are explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. When I and other editors asked you to find sources, we did not mean for you to do your own synthesis, but to find a reliable source that had done so. If that was not made clear, I apologize.
Source by source explanation:
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
What appears to be an introductory philosophy textbook. No idea how this is relevant.
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. Could possibly be relevant, given that assisted suicide is punishable as second degree manslaughter in some US states, but I don't think the site separates cases of assisted suicide from any of the other crimes they list. Do not see the connection.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the Scottish Human Rights Commission disputing the Scottish government choosing to have their citizens bring human rights issues to the European Court of Human Rights, not the UK Supreme Court. No idea how this is relevant.
4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
European crime statistics by country, what sort of crime is not explicit. Even if it were statistics of suicide rates, this says nothing of hidden motives or "who the opposition is". Irrelevant.
5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document I linked to you that is merely some introductory facts and figures about suicide. No idea how this is relevant.

I know you have spelled out things like "crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment!" and "then references-WHO-Warburton-disciplinary panel from APA and European Psy. Assoc.-crime-stats-suicide-stats-ECtHR-backlog" which I can only assume are your "logical trains of thought", but let me reiterate: no original synthesis is permitted.

As an aside, you may find it easier to contribute constructively on either of the two Norwegian Wikipedias, as your userpage states you are a native speaker of Norwegian. I have no familiarity with that language so I don't know which one that userbox you have would imply. I make this suggestion because I've noticed that several editors besides myself have found your posts somewhat hard to understand, a problem you would avoid if you were working with your native language. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I now loathe relating to you, Jonathanfu, but here are the relevant facts FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE BOOKS!!!:
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""
4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.
You know, you "other editors", for how long must I spoon-feed this s*cker??? Such retard feeback or objection when everybody knows there is a damn hard requirement of reading up FIRST!!! I bet this low "thing" hasn't even checked with Amazon for TOC (of anything). So for Jonathanfu (whomever, wherever), as much as a car can get wrecked then also ... BYE! --LFOlsnes-Lea 11:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because you are clearly here not to build an encyclopaedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a blog or forum to promote your own views, because you approach other editors with a battleground mentality, and because you have several competence issues, including an apparent inability to understand anything that other editors say to you if it doesn't fit in with your views. If you think tehe are good reasons why you shoudl be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LFOlsnes-Lea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrators of Wikipedia
I have no motive for subverting you. I haven't had any motive for "acting against you". What Jonathanfu wants out of his attention, probably outside "his articles" either way, is beyond me. I'm merely looking at quality of articles and think about what people can benefit from reading. I know that most contributors here, at least, the Administrators, are academics and I expect quality approach from them for this reason. So, apart from running in with Jonathanfu, there is very little to point to for me. Most warnings have been pretty speedy as if they are not entirely mediated upon. So I'm with you, but why are you against me? I'm supposed to improve on a behavioural pattern that I'm not aware of. Is it this material on "Assisted Suicide" and the rest, 2 or 3 articles or is it something else? Am I not supposed to be able to write to the article that pro-suicide-legislation should have an "Intellectual Defence"? No, I find this incredible too, also according to my experience with studying at university of "not the worst quality". So tell me, in a better way, what you want and I will probably improve without "selling my soul to the Devil" because I am most certainly with you and, of course, Wikipedia. I've honestly tried to act exemplary both to Wikipedia's 5 Pillars, but also to general service considerations of what the general public may want to read as useful input! Offers (2): I can offer a "lower profile", if that's what you want? It's the smallest thing for me to write less to you and Wikipedia in general. I can also offer to enter a mentor-program if you want it? Good?
Sincerely yours,
L. F. Olsnes-Lea

PS: I also happen to know that Jonathanfu has been the guy who failed to identify the green pyramids on the back of Scientology books, even though the links were only lines above his own statement. I wonder if he even read books. That's how miserable the judgment is of these people so they can safely lean back on their WP:SOAP, WP:VAN, WP:OR, "WP:DEVIL" and "WP:ALLTHENONSENSEINTHEWORLD". If I prevail through this, I want the rights to laugh of these people hideously!!!
by LFOlsnes-Lea 18:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed this request, and your more recent edits. It appears that, on a very basic level, you don't understand what an encyclopedia is, or what kind of writing is appropriate for one. It also appears that, when others try to teach or help you, you treat them as though they are stupid or as though they are attacking you. A mentor can teach you Wikipedia's rules, but probably won't be able to teach you basic writing and interpersonal skills. Wikipedia just isn't a good place for that kind of teaching. Your idea that Wikipedia editors and administrators are mostly 'academics' is completely wrong- Wikipedians are from many different kinds of backgrounds and work, and only a few are university teachers. Some are children. If, as you say, you are a university student, you should focus on developing good research writing skills, good skills in writing in English, and good skills in working with other people. Once you master those skills, you'll be ready to work with a Wikipedia mentor on learning Wikipedia's rules. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Yeah, it probably is worth noting. I am an admin who has been involved with this editor before. "Competence issues" and "battleground mentality" are two of things indicated in the block, and I have to agree with both of them. Also, the comments by that editor above, outside of the request, indicate that he has little if any grasp of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with his at best circuitous comments about citations about suicide, as well as clear civility issues. I am clearly not neutral on this subject, which is why I didn't respond to the request, but I have to think that it is probably reasonable. I could, possibly, see it being lifted if and only if the editor clearly agrees to some form of editing restrictions and mentoring. Maybe. But, considering that he has displayed little if any interest in learning the way things work around here to date, I have serious reservations about whether such measures would be effective. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add 'inability to communicate rationally' to the 'competence' issues, judging by his performance at Talk:Telepathy#Note on Telepathy and Its Standing in the World, the Reality. Not only engaging in WP:OR and soapboxing, but actually discussing another article entirely for much of the time, which accounts for at least some of the confusion. He seems to think that Wikipedia editors are all 'academic experts' in subjects, obliged to engage in some sort of abstract philosophical debate with him. I was contemplating raising his competence myself, and was glad to see I'd been beaten to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the green pyramids" you mention in your unblock request and your edit summary

I assume you're referencing a discussion on Talk:Scientology you began about a month ago. It's since been archived by a bot. Here's the link to the discussion in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_29#The_Cross

For future reference, perhaps on the Norwegian Wikipedia you appear to have been contributing to or if you are unblocked here, to find past discussions you contributed to, you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LFOlsnes-Lea, which is your own contribution list. By looking through it you would have been able to find this discussion.Jonathanfu (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Matter What They Say, I Have the Curiosa List above

Ok. So no matter what the above is, I have the curiosa list above on my User talk:LFOlsnes-Lea and that this is the last I want to point out! Goodbye (for as long as realisation takes, and contributions to Europe and UN work too by Hindenburg-New York investigations that I have led and that had a Chomsky-Chair-equiv.-prize attached to it even in USA, as they have insisted on telling the Truth. Sorry, again, I am one person, but you defy the information demands of an entire Earth society, with a first line of 2 - 4 Billion English user-group, all in all)!

To the "radio-towers" of the World, I've been writing this "Hindenburg-New York-Financial-Radicalism-USA" and now it strikes me (for easing or introducing the awful news, I've had 2 waves, one of my own country too) that Billy Idol is the man for the job with "Shock to the System" (also for us in Europe, *dark* heh-heh-heh), url, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx2fZU5USus - by official EMI channel - Billy Idol - Shock To The System! Have a nice day!


Since you are continuing to use your talk page to post irrelevant and nonsensical WP:SOAPBOX rants while blocked, I have revoked your ability to edit it. If you wish to contest your block, please follow the instructions below. --Kinu t/c 17:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LFOlsnes-Lea&oldid=1148816438"