User talk:Sjö/Archive 4

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

2015 archive

Trevor Chowning Wiki

I included the links in the reference section to support the corrections and for the content I added. It's all true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAA88 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Wikipedia is not your private website or a bulletin board where you can post whatever you want. There is no reason to add controversial information about an unknown person. Sjö (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. The correct the info about the short film The Chaperone should be edited. It was not nominated for an Academy Award. It was nominated for a Student Academy Award which is mush different. It's all on imdb. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAA88 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Just go ahead and fix it. Sjö (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The sound of high heels

Hi there?

I have noted the sound of high heels and have seen many people agree with me. However, is there a Wikipedia policy that prohibits forum sources? What would be considered an acceptable source when it comes to a poll of opinions?

Thanks. 151.225.85.170 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:USERGENERATED. Reliable sources are generally something you can find something in a book, or an article in a newspaper or even on some websites (but it's hard to determine if a website is reliable enough). The page I linked to in the first sentence has lots of examples of what's a reliable source and what's not. 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Gummo Marx

Hi Sjö, please see the talk page before making any more changes to the Gummo Marx page. The suggestion that all of the information I put on the page is "fake" (made by an IP address) is not enough to justify removing everything I worked on. Please let me know if you have further ideas about this or can help verify or disprove what I put on the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained why the info is wrong on Talk:Gummo Marx. Sjö (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice please

When you get a chance, please review the France edit recently added at no-go area. I reverted it once because it is the editor's unsourced opinion which is a result of WP:SYNTH. This is what happens when an article's context is ambiguous and unsourced. Thanks in advance. Atsme☯Consult 23:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The text seems to be a correct description of what happened, and it certainly isn't unsourced as you claimed in your edit comment. I'm leaving it as it is. Sjö (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW - reverting one edit is hardly considered disruptive editing. Is it your intent to intimidate me which is not unlike WP:BULLYING? Atsme☯Consult 07:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's rich, coming from you, considering that you recently warned two other editors to stop being "disruptive". The "disruptive" behaviour being that one of them had removed an unwarranted speedy tag and the other a prod tag, both of which is perfectly OK by Wikipedia's rules. Sjö (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should investigate further to see what provoked my comments/concerns instead of immediately passing judgment. Andy had been suggesting deletion of the article long before I ever appeared on the scene. Then he changed his position, and started contradicting his own reasons for wanting it deleted. No-go ironically became Andy's partisan WP:BATTLEGROUND, [1]. You haven't been exactly consistent, either. [2] I thought it was a little odd that you suddenly appeared and immediately took sides instead of encouraging NPOV. As for the deletion templates, I made an human mistake when I added the wrong templates. I was actively trying to get help on AfD when Nomo interfered and reverted. Nomo's presence at no-go wasn't by accident. He has been stalking my edits over another incident. I initially came here asking you for advice, but I see where you're coming from now. Too bad the article has to suffer as a result of all the confusion. Anytime an article's TP grows 3x larger than the article itself over the course of a few days, the reasons are obvious. No-go went from being an obscure incoherent little stub to a WP:COATRACK before the context for the article had been determined. And just look at that coherent list of useless references cluttering up the article - excellent MOS/layout. Good job, Sjö - and thanks for the advice. Atsme☯Consult 05:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I find that extremely hard to believe. You are an experienced editor, you asked for advice about "A1" speedy and you referenced WP:PROD as a reason for your warning. In my opinion, it's clear that the above is an attempt at justification after the fact. If it isn't, the message still stands: acquaint yourself with Wikipedia rules and procedures before making any edits that could be controversial. That goes double if you intend to warn another editor for supposedly breaking the rules. Sjö (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
AGF, remember? I was having issues, [3] [4], [5]. I found the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and dubious WP:POV pushing at No-go_area quite disturbing, [6] especially considering the well sourced material I found [7] which was dismissed by you and Andy, [8]. Then you made the request [9] which I fulfilled, [10], and you processed it to fit your POV, [11] ignoring the relevant parts that define "no-go areas". There are all kinds of trip hazards when one doesn't AGF and things devolve to WP:ASPERSIONS. I'll just end this tit-for-tat by saying your warning has been noted, and remind you that it applies both ways. Happy editing. Atsme☯Consult 20:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I Apologize... :'-(

Yesterday I made an edit on the page about World War III, in the "Fiction" section, where I added what I thought would be another fine example of an "alternate history" mockumentary, a 2006 audio drama called "The Last Broadcast", which I recently discovered on YouTube. When I went back to the same page and section, I noticed my edit was gone. So, I checked the edit history, and the following log entry revealed the reason why: 

03:20, 23 January 2015‎ Sjö (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,720 bytes) (-1,469)‎ . . (→‎Fiction: not the place to add class projects)

Yes, I DO admit that I stated that the audio play WAS (part of) a "class project", as opposed to being "professionally produced", as the other examples were, and there is no need for you to explain anything to me...I DO understand PERFECTLY. Therefore, I hereby APOLOGIZE for this, and would appreciate ANY advice on how to avoid this "issue" in the future. No hard feelings? Thank you, and take care. :-) 2602:306:C456:2380:B804:5A55:D47D:68AB (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Coercion? Contention about Taxation

First, I must apologize for any incidental rudeness or annoyance; I'm very new and casual with Wikipedia.

Second, I have had this conversation before: So, second: taxation. You don't think taxation is coercive. Indeed, for those who do not take issue with it, it is not. However, for those who do not agree with it, they are not allowed to not participate in the tax system. They are forced to by threat of jail and/or death. Is this not inherently coercive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyguy76767 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Indeed, from the definition one could say that its enforcement is coercive. However, coercion carries a negative connotation of something illegal, however taxation is generally considered a government right. (Please, also, when you post, add 4 tildes or click on the button at the bottom of the editor window that does this for you, to sign your posts, like this:) Iwilsonp (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; I've been figuring out how to use proper etiquette on here by trial and annoyance (not intending to annoy of course).

  • Yes, it certainly is a negative connotation: coercion is involuntary. Is imposition really any better? Taxation is, likewise, involuntary for those who do not wish to participate.
  • Since without taxation, government would not exist, why wouldn't it be considered a government right?
  • There are things that are illegal for which there is no rational basis, such as marijuana.
  • That taxation, and thus government, are coercive does not mean that without government there are no rules - agreed upon things - for society. Rather, it is the opposite: without government, there would be a return to sense and rules, as government contradicts sense, reason, and morality starting from its very origin - taxation.
  • From taxation follows the rest of things that don't make sense in society, since we are inculcated to believe that coercion, if it is in the form of taxation, is not coercion, but civilization. As you said yourself in your edit of my edit: "I don't think it's coercion."
  • Doublethink, epitomized in the general view of taxation, is why the world is in general ruin from corporations: corporations are legal entities of the state, after all. Shyguy76767 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Shyguy76767 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Iwilsonp here; coersion is the wrong word to use since it implies an unlawful activity. The words "imposed" and "punishable" make it clear that taxes are non-voluntary payments, but linking to coercion introduces a non-neutral point of view, something that we should avoid in Wikipedia articles. Sjö (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this how you do that?
If taxes are non-voluntary payments, and thus the law is a non-voluntary system, how is accountability possible? Unless you can withdraw participation voluntarily, how is taxation, and thus, the law, not coercive? Coercion refers to threats, which is the basis of non-voluntary participation.
Is it really possible, or even proper, to have a neutral point of view when discussing right and wrong, morality and immorality? If I asked you to hold a neutral view of our discussion, would that be possible? Could you toss aside your conceptions about The State, law, police, and just look at the logic of it? As shown by your own re-edits, the answer is No: you are biased in favor of the idea of lawful activity being viewed as moral. Yet, if activity is involuntary, how could it possibly be moral? How could coercion be construed as an inaccurate link to it? Shyguy76767 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I understand your arguments. I'll have to think about it when I have more time. Sjö (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Having thought about it a bit more, I understand that your arguments seem to be based on the idea that you are right and that which is an opinion in other people is a fact when it comes from you. Please understand that no argument can be won that way. Sjö (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How is the reasoning I provided an example of me having the idea that I am right and that which I say is fact? If the wikipage for taxation did not have imposition as part of it's definition, I could see how what you're saying would hold water if I was adding that to the definition. However, I was simply making the word (imposition) linked to what amounts to a synonym, as attested by merriam-webster, thefreedictionary, vocabulary, google, dictionary.reference.com, thesaurus, dictionary.cambridge, and macmillandictionary, since the only wikipedia page for it has to do with the printing press, which is obviously not the meaning.
Further, how is stating your opinion as fact - "I don't think it's coercion." not exactly what you are accusing me of?{{unsigned[Shyguy76767}}

List of humorous units of measurement

My browser did an edit (in scope) that I did not intend. Can't explain it. Sorry about that. Good catch. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting some good edits, but I took it for vandalism. I reverted myself to your next to last edit and changed the level for the RCH heading, which I think was what you wanted to do. Hope I got it right. Sjö (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Aronthemovie

Hello Sjö. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Aronthemovie to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. -- GB fan 01:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Prathik Ponnanna

Nice photo album they have there (19 pics!), or is it an election ad? [[File:|25px|link=]] 220 of Borg 08:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Americans

Hi I have reverted your edit along with the other IP Edits to the last stable version. Do check and revert if i missed any constructive edits. Thank You. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You restored an unsourced and very dubious text by the IP. I'll assume that it was a mistake and remove it. Sjö (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Simon Cho

Yes, there is a rule to keep defamatory content off a living person's page. The content on Simon's page is misleading and makes it look like Simon was fully responsible for his actions and that he did what he did on free will. It makes no mention of his abusive coach, nor the fact that that coach was banned from USS. Simon was forced to act by his coach and then he was forced to admit what he did. To say that he was fully responsible for this on his page is potentially libelous and is therefore against wikipedia rules regarding living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.46.75 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said before WP:BLP allows this kind of information. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed but this information is well sourced and also important enough to keep in the article since it had an impact on his career. What you "know for a fact" as you wrote at User talk:MusikAnimal can't be used on Wikipedia, unless you can support it with a reliable and independent source. Even then the incident should be mentioned. There are many articles about living persons with negative information about the article subject. That it's negative is no reason to remove it. Sjö (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
And I see that you have removed it for the last few months. By now you should have realized that consensus is for keeping it. Please stop edit warring, it can get you blocked. Sjö (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

YOTO

CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL

hey why you deleted my information YOTO. do you know It is the very famous brand in India. recently the YOTO brnad having too much talk in the market. Why are you refusing about my information?


CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL What do you mean by word YOTO? you had putted very false information even it is not containing any reference or avaidance about information. still you had put that information instead of my edits. My concern is not to doing marketing or Promotion about YOTO okey. I just tried to put correct information on wiki about youngsters hot favorite brand YOTO.


For one thing, you just don't throw out an article and replace it with a text about your own company, that's very impolite. Secondly, I'm not sure your company meets the notability requirements in WP:COMPANY. Also, Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise your company. Sjö (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL Please restore my recent EDIT and displayed it on WIKI so my friends can get the actual meaning of YOTO. Even the my edit having all the references so you cant say that I am spam. And I don't have any concern about BRAND PROMOTION. YOTO might be have it's own website why they tried to promote their brand here in wiki? So please understand and restore my recent EDIT. Thanking you.

No. I won't replace the article about the prefecture in Togo with your text. Feel free to start an article named for example YOTO. But make sure the facts in the article are supported by reliable, independent sources. Sjö (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There is already a page at Yoto, you are not allowed to delete it to replace with your company. If you want to make an article about your company, make it at Yoto (company) instead. Repeated deletion of the Yoto article will be classed as vandalism. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL

OK I am going to creat new article with name of YOTO. please do not delete it.

Reverted 3 times! Please do not break WP:3RR. Thanks. — Pikachu2568 pika!sandmoves @ 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pikachu2568: What article would that be? Sjö (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project

Hi Sjö, Thank you for your advise! Itrinks (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reena Bhardwa

hay !!! who r u .. to interfare in Reena Bhardwaj's Article. please i want to edit new info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinjarvis (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The info you add appears to be all made up. Wikipedia is a serious project and not for your personal entertainment. Sjö (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Get Your Spelling Right.

I edited the page "Windtalkers" for a reason. I am an actual enrolled member of the Navajo Nation. If you want to keep re-editing it, at least get your facts and spelling right. And respect it. And if you need more validation, here you go:http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=yazzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.74.218 (talk • contribs)

Yahzee is the name of the character in the film according to the sources, so that is what we go by. Whether it should have been Yazzie is another question entirely. We don't change articles about films featuring Native American to reflect what the films should have been, we describe the films as they are. Sjö (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

cannabis page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.121.159.130#April_2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.159.130 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you add unreferenced and improbable stuff (like Canada being a historically notable grower), remove sourced text and add a promotional link description you will be warned. Sjö (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

ugly and unreferenced note

It was in the artice of Islamic schools and branches for a long time before I put it to references, if it was ugly it should be removed immediately.. 68.100.171.6 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The text hadn't been there for a long time, it was put there today. That's not the reason I removed it, but because it was ugly since it was added inside a section heading, and because it was unreferenced. Sjö (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Jones Issues

I wasn't looking forward to trying to streamline that section. Thank you for just cutting the Gordian knot there. It was likely the right approach, and took a lot less time than I would have burned! Carl Henderson (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm ABCDEFAD. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kean Rabuyo, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. ABCDEFADtalk to me 13:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Refuses to recognize news citations

Instead of quickly reverting edits please read content sources to confirm or deny their validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.189.22 (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

i made a error

i did not intened that so much was added Dannis243 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought that might be what happened. Sjö (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

please undid what you undid

hi but i'm sure you made a mistake. she did sang the beatles' "we can work it out" with pharrell. so please undid what you undid. thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeypupu22 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't change anything you wrote about the Beatles. If you want to put something in the article, dp so, but make sure you have a reliable source to back it up. Sjö (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries) 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/List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries) 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.

Ref desk

The guy tried to continue the debate after it was closed. Nothing in the edit summary, to avoid any more troll-feeding than necessary. Thank you for undermining that effort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And you think that that removing it draws less attention to it, since it was already hatted? Anyway, it still was unexplained, so there's no need to get snarky. Sjö (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I re-deleted it with DNFTT. I hope you're happy now. I have also asked for the perp to be blocked, though I'm not betting the family jewels that they will do anything. As regards deleting without comment, that's been the usual consensus at the talk page, and you should have looked at what was going on before you reverted my deletion. Actually, the entire thing is trolling and should be deleted. I don't know why the hatter didn't just zap it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for being snippy. It's just frustrating to do the recommended thing and then feel like you're being sabotaged. Although, technically, it's the IP-hopper whose to blame for all of this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kolon

I blocked the IP--the information they inserted came from the (same source as the) earlier version. I also blocked the first account in the recent history; they had created the previous version. I left a warning for the other account, Jaytogo--guess I could have blocked them too. If need be we can protect the redirect. Thanks for keeping an eye on it, Drmies (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a bit of googling, since I thought that maybe Colon was a better target for the redirect. It turns out that Kolon Industries is a fairly large company with an article on the Korean Wikipedia, and it's in DuPont v. Kolon Industries. There's also an Abba Kolon as well as a number of places named Kolon. I'll see what I can do about Kolon. Sjö (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea. BTW, I'm practicing saying your name, but even my monitor shakes itself in scorn and denial. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hehe! Nothing like an umlaut and the sj-sound to confuse English-speaking readers. Actually, it's pronounced like the Swedish noun, but some Americans hear it as "way". Sjö (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism Definition:

Hello, I had just now added the perfect definition of "Capitalism" which is purely authentic, and it is from a writer who had dedicated her life in defense of Capitalism and the only one who knows the exact definition of the term. For proof you can refer "Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal". I have studied all of her works for nearly two years and have a certain high degree of understanding of her writings. And referring Ms.Rand as "fringe" is highly offensive. Kindly share your concern regarding the Definition. Arjun1491 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that followers of Ayn Rand hold her in the highest possible regard. That doesn't change the fact that her ideas are largely not accepted. Please take the discussion to Talk:Capitalism and get consensus there before you change the lede again. Sjö (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Sure, I will be doing that. About the the point of acceptability of ideas, the correct method is to analyse and judge the ideas based on its truth value regardless of who the Author is, and calling them fringe or otherwise. For example the fact that the idea "Earth revolves around the sun" was largely not accepted by the people during middle ages and that idea was largely unpopular. It does not mean that it was a wrong idea. During those theocratic regimes, scientists were considered "fringe". And thanks for the suggestion of getting consensus. I will try my best to get it. Arjun1491 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion nomination of Slomin's shield

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 Slomin's shield, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Williamace7 (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC) ==

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I've always noticed that this one company's name Slomin's is also called Slomin's Shield in news papers and even referred to by celebrities, politicians and mentioned by other public figures. I thought this entry would simply define that they are one and the same.

Looking at this news article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/huffpost-hill_n_6716672.html - RUDY GIULIANI NOUN/VERB/OBAMA'D SO HARD - You mean to tell us that Rudy GIuliani still isn't embracing his fate and appearing in home security system commercials? ("I'm former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, if ISIS knows one thing, it's that it hates America. If it knows another thing, it's that it never messes with the Slomin Shield." The slomin shield comment refers to Slomin's securities company


I've made changes to remove any promoting guidelines. Please see changes.

Slomin’s Shield (also known as “Slomin Shield”) refers to Slomin's Inc.


References to there similarities can be found on their website[1], on Courier Post Online[2] and on Huffington Post[3]

Jump up ^ Slomin's Website Jump up ^ Courier Post Online Jump up ^ Huffington Post

Article

If you find time for it please take a look at the article Clark Olofsson that I created today. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sjo, I was trying to create a company page for spreading information. So created this article. I am new techiee. Please guide.

Roy Hibbert

Roy Hibbert is 267 pounds! He Said himself Gregnagle (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you changed his weight to 300 pounds. Anyway, we go by what the sources say, so don't change his weight without a reliable source. The stats link in the infobox still gives his weight as 290 so you need a more reliable source than NBA.com to make any change. Sjö (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

autonomous weapons article

Hello,

would you mind providing the evidence of the Campaign being explicitly and only including the term Killer Robots. The campaign signatories letter shows only autonomous weapons, media reportage uses the term killer robots, those sources are reporting on the campaign and are secondary, they aren't the actual campaign. Thanks Whalestate (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In any case I found the relevant site now, so no need to bother. My mistake. Since the use of term killer robots seemed so utterly ridiculous and ill-thought out, I just presumed you had made an error is all. Thanks Whalestate (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


ZRH vandal

Hello Sjö, there is an anononymous user User:85.4.148.79 (talk) is continually vandalizing Zurich Airport. I ask you if you can do something paese, because after my and other user revision of his edits, he continue vandalizing the page.

Zurich00swiss (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I really think it's more of a content dispute and qusteion of due weight than vandalism. The source seems to be reliable, but the language is a bit exaggerated (e.g. "obviously"). Please discuss on talk, it's entirely possible that the suggestion of Dübendorf as a replacement is too unimportsant to be mentioned in the articles. Sjö (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bubbies has been accepted

Bubbies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

North America1000 23:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

why is the verifiable box still on that profile I built? I have all verifiable sources on that article yet you are using a blog of a troll to verify things. What are the sources that were not verified pls? Everything under career is sourced. Wikicohen (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I started listing the things that aren't sourced on the article talk page. Read that. Sjö (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Leonard Bygdén

Hej! You can move Draft:Leonard Bygdén to Wikipedia mainspace, it doesn't have to be done by an English admin person. I can't do it as I am the author. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not, since I'm not sure if there's some procedure to follow. Besides, I don't have autopatrolled rights (on enwiki) so I think the article will still have to be approved by a more experienced editor. Sjö (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sjo I believe you and me need to clear up the Kemi Olunloyo page

I am someone who has done an incredible amount of research on the subject Kemi Olunloyo, now I understand unbiased, factual and concise information is required on Wiki, I unlike others do not want to have a negative interaction with you or Wiki at all, I would just like to inform you that I believe you might have made a mistake in reverting some of the editing that I had done to a page, I have reviewed the history of the Biography page you seem to be hovering over and I noticed you are having a direct interaction with Kemi Olunloyo herself aka WikiCohen, I am sure through your many years of doing this you get a feeling your assumptions about her being the author of the page might be spot on, I apologize if you believe I was making a malicious edit but I was not. please review the choice of removing the name "Olukemi Ajoke" from the wiki page of the subject matter because this is a fact and the living biography page of a person should reflect that. now, your defense "I want to see a source" will be find with me I can show you video or audio of it coming out of her own mouth. I look forward to your professional and courteous reply to my query, thank you.

70.26.73.164 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made a total revert because the page had been filled with unsourced text and puffery and I might have reverted some good edits at the same time. What the article needs is neutral and sourced information, and assuming good faith on talk pages. As long as everybody works toward that, everything will be fine. Sjö (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am new here so bear with me, the youtube video was of Kemi herself. for background, that is an interview done by a nigerian radio station asking her about the warrants and the video is of Kemi herself breaking down each and every charge, if you wanted to watch the video which I know you dont have time for, it explicity shows her with her own voice explaining it all. I literally typed her statement verbatim. WikiShawnio (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know how to properly source audio if you don't mind, the subject matter we have been discussing has a trove of interviews and audio clips that she uploaded herself, I don't know how to present this as sourced material, newspapers in Nigeria purge their news alot, especially the audio clips but Kemi has posted them on her official facebook pages and even on the source she herself included at the bottom of the page (soundcloud) how do I go about preserving these and or citing them correctly, thank you WikiShawnio (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a question better discussed on Talk:Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo‎. I'll answer there about the Youtube clip, but I don't have an answer about the audio clips. Sjö (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
SJO I have researched that audio clip. Ms O-O did not do an interview with a Nigerian radio station. The audio is not relevant as I dont know if it is truely her voice speaking. The interview was done by one African Outlook Online magazine out of New York City and they complained to YouTube that wikishawnio stole their copyrighted material and embedded it on YouTube. Too much drama this guy has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicohen (talk • contribs)
Like I said, that is a question that should be discussed on the article talk page. Don't post unsourced defamatory statements about living persons, not here and not anywhere else. Sjö (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo is a VIP Blogger with Pulse Nigeria

I have been removing some hearsay sources posted by Wikishawnio on this website as they all can't be traced to the original post where Ms O-O said some of these things. Now I found a section where she is a VIP blogger. Is this a conflict of interest? Wikishawnio even thinks she solicited Pulse NG to write certain things so therefore nothing should be sourced? Pls answer soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicohen (talk • contribs)

If the source is reliable there doesn't have to be a trace to some original post. Please don't remove sourced content without a valid reason per Wikipedia rules since that could be seen as vandalism. If you believe the source is unreliable discuss it on the article talk page.
Do you have a link to the VIP blogger section? If you do, post it there. Sjö (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr Sjo, I have found a credible source to back up the youtube clip I posted earlier that we discussed, I don't want to press the matter but it gives weight to the subject matter as it was reported in the newspapers there when she was residing in Georgia, www.newtoncitizen.com/news/2009/jul/15/da-says-pharmacist-to-be-extradited/ I just want you to see that I am not trying to slam anyone, I am just doing research and unfortunately this is what keeps popping up. thank you WikiShawnio (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)ADDED EDIT: it is in this video that I was trying to show you where she mentions herself she was arrested IN the pharmacy she was working in for threatening to poison a judges child, hence my contentions where she is claiming to be an active pharmacist, thats the gist {{unsourceed|WikiShawnio}}

Discussions about sourcing and content should be at Talk:Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo‎, not here. I'll say this: I've seen the link before, and it doesn't source the text you wrote when you added the Youtube link. Also, don't post Don't post unsourced defamatory statements about living persons, not here and not anywhere else, and especially not in the article. Sjö (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hafiz Saeed Page

Why was my edit a blatant attack while America declared Modi a global terrorist after Gujrat attacks and UK also banned him alongwith European countries. This ban has just recently been lifted after his election as PM. So, stop threatening me that you will ban me from editing. I thought, you would say something more logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maulakhan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was a serious breach of the policy WP:BLP. As for "blatant attack", you must have misread; I didn't write that. Sjö (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mortars and machine guns

Infantry mortars and machine guns are not considered "support" weapons. I see you got upset at a misspelling of a Navajo name. Imagine how upsetting it is to be an infantryman and then to be called a non-infantryman in a support role. Machine guns are crew served weapons meant to sustain an individual unit. They are used by every type of unit in either a defensive or offensive role for that specific unit. "Support" means to support another unit. As artillery supports the infantry. Please refrain from editing things you know nothing about. Thank you. Btw, thank your ancestors for the incredible job they did confusing the hell out of the Japanese. They are true heroes and deserve every ounce of my respect. Solri89 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Erikslund Shopping Center

Hello. I just uploaded File:Vasteras city map - 01.png. I wish to upload another version with a big red dot showing the location of Erikslund Shopping Center for use in articles Erikslund Shopping Center and 2015 Ikea murders. Could you please advise me on the location of that shopping centre. The coordinates at the shopping centre article show here, in a field. The shopping centre is that complex to the east, right? That is what the map shows. I just want to be sure that the field, which looks like it is being cleared, is not now the location of the shopping centre. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This map shows the field is the shopping centre but has another gray Erikslund just to the east. So, the field? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Yes, the field. Google maps [12] in map mode shows roads and a shopping centre there. Apparently the shopping centre was built after the photo was taken. IKEA is in the eastern part[13]. Sjö (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. Google is blocked here in China, so your info is very helpful. I now see that Erikslund is also a neighbourhood, so all makes sense. Many thanks, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Slojkowski - probably a hoax

I'm from Poland and I believe it's a hoax written by a Pole. Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. I only reverted obvious vandalism and didn't read the article. Most of it is a hoax and the rest is unsourced. Sjö (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hand Grenade

Hi Sjö,


I saw your revert of the edit on the page & you asked me to come to talk.

While Stars & Stripes is the "independent news and information to the U.S. military community" they're staffed by journalists who often do not have the depth of knowledge of munitions that serving soldiers do, this is the same for newspapers, military or otherwise, in most countries. I'm sure you've noticed this in Sweden too. The threat for which slat armour had been developed was the anti-armour RPG which, for the unitiated, may easily be confused with anti-armour RKG.

Further to that I've been in many MRAPs and seen far more but have yet to find any with overhead slat armour. I believe when Specialist Parrish of the 5th Eng Bn, 4th Maneuver Enhancement Bde was killed it was again a top attack. The RKG-3 is as you know a hand deployed anti-armour device of about one kilo in weight. and it is extremely difficult to obtain an effective side impact on a vehicle, moving or otherwise. Coupled with this the frag radius of the RPK-3 exceeds it's accurate range making anything but a top attack a questionable and dangerous operation.

The armed forces are also limited by budgetary constraints, and modifying a complete series of vehs from one single fatal incident is not something they'd usually consider.

I'd be interested in your comments.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredcleangate3 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Well, Wikipedia is very much about using reliable sources to support the statements in the article. Personal experience is valuable to vet and interpret the sources, but it's not really enough on its own. I'm going to put a "dubious" tag on the section to flag it as questionable, and I'll take the liberty of copying this section to Talk:Hand grenade so more editors can join the discussion. What you could do in the mean time is to find a reliable source that says that the slat armour on these lightly armoured vehicles s against RPGs. There are just a couple of things I'd like to say. First, I think the article could mention that anti-tank grenades have been used recently, even if they are rather obsolete. Second, I think that a reporter for Stars and Stripes is in a better position to get the facts right than a reporter from a common newspaper, due to contacts and experience. That makes that source more reliable than an article from, say, a small-town newspaper written by a reporter without special knowledge. Sjö (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sjö,

Been away and busy. Here's a couple of links pointing out that slat/bar armour was designed as a protective measure against RPGs rather than RKGs. http://www.vietvet.org/bararmor.htm http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/baes-lrod-cage-armor-03473/ http://science.howstuffworks.com/stryker2.htm http://gizmodo.com/how-armor-is-evolving-to-beat-tank-smashing-rpgs-1555422743

Your opinion of how Stars & Stripes works is interesting. I've no idea how much you've had to do with the paper but I've had many dealings with them, and to be honest the majority of reporters with a byline in it are still only journos, no better or worse than one from a "common or small-town newspaper written by a reporter without special knowledge."

Kind regards,

Tiredcleangate3 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, those links are useful. One more thing: you removed "a reporter from a common newspaper" from my text. Please don't do that again, it's considered rude to refactor other's comments on talk pages (except for some very specific reasons, e.g. personal attacks). Sjö (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sjö,

Chill, the removal was unintentional. I used a couple of copy & pastes in my last and must have cut & pasted that particular piece.

Kind regards,

Tiredcleangate3 (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Sjö (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your userpage

I can happily semi-protect your userpage for you, as it appears to have been a target of disruption for some time — MusikAnimal talk 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not that bothered by it. The last vandalism was kind of funny, actually. For a while there I was apparently a black Danish computer scientist/professional basketball player. Not many of those around! Sjö (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve Prator

Which change are you referring to?

The litigation? Would you like the suit stamped "filed"?

The wiki is full of media citations, but this wiki is slanted toward this living person's campaign opponent. It has other inaccuracies.

You boilerplate response isn't helpful, but maybe I could see who edited this previously and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.27.70 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about your, 70.196.9.32's and Jwes115's edits. Calling Hatfield "Hatefilled", referring to a woman as "concubine" and talking about a "sophomoric muck campaign" just isn't acceptable to do in Wikipedia's voice. I guess that there's a dirty campaign going on and some hot feelings in connection with that.I don't care much about what happens in Shreveport, just don't take your issues to Wikipedia. Sjö (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Apolozise

Sorry, I had done it by mistake.And the message was typed by my little brother.Notice all the letters were capital.

Apolozise

Sorry, I had done it by mistake.And the message was typed by my little brother.Notice all the letters were capital.

Well, keep him off Wikipedia (or teach him to edit responsibly) and all will be fine. Sjö (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweden opposition parties

I edited Riksdag to show that the Alliance helps keep the current government in power since the Decemberöverenskommelsen, a confidence and supply agreement. That this is a confidence and supply agreement is not a point of view, this is a fact by virtue of the definition of confidence_and_supply. I am no Swede and have no interest in any party's point of view, just in having a clear and accurate article and since the Alliance parties signed a confidence and supply agreement with the government that puts them under that category.

However, you decided instead to eliminate the category entirely and put all non-government parties under "opposition". Now, I will grant that whether or not a party offering confidence and supply support is an "opposition" party is more open to interpretation. Do I understand correctly that parties offering such support have been considered opposition parties nonetheless, both under the current government and under previous governments? If that is the case I certainly agree that your current edit is accurate, though I would point out that other countries' parliaments' pages, such as New Zealand, Denmark and Norway do maintain the distinction between supporting parties and other non-government parties.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The December agreement is dead after the Christian Democrats decided to leave it on October 9, so the question is moot. Sjö (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Did the other Alliance parties leave it?Thorbecke2012 (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Their leaders declared that the agreement is void, see [14] (Swedish) and [15]. Sjö (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sputnik (news agency)

Hi, if possible I would contest your edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sputnik_%28news_agency%29&oldid=688184248) on Sputnik (news agency).

Besides the fact that I think it is debatable if looks better or not (in my opinion it uselessly clutters the Infobox and can be added in text form in a new paragraph), but maybe in this case there's a specific rule that I missed which force to add all the features there, the problem for me is that their "About us" section is still outdated and thus incomplete, since it's missing additional language services, which are: Abkhaz, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Belarusian, Brazilian Portuguese, Cantonese, Czech, Danish, Dari, English, Finnish, French, Georgian, German, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kurdish, Kyrgyz, Moldovan, Norwegian, Ossetian, Pashto, Persian, Polish, Serbian, Spanish, Standard Chinese, Swedish, Turkish, Urdu, Uzbek, Vietnamese, plus many other sites have an additional Russian service.

Having said that, I think that's possible to discuss about how the article can accordingly changed. – ElSaxo (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, when you say that their "About us" is incomplete does that mean that some of the languages aren't on the website? If that's the case, any language that doesn't have a source should be removed. On the edit, I think having a list of languages clutters up the article body, especially when it's in the bulleted format. It's a short article, and the number of languages is made much too prominent, in my opinion. A non-bulleted text integrated in some section would also work as well as having the list in the infobox. Sjö (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No I meant the opposite, their "About us" page ([16]) must be old and thus outdated, because they now offer many more different language services which aren't presented in that page and that also you can see by clicking "All editions" on top right of any page (No way to copy this link). What I'm trying to say is that the "About us" page is actually unreliable. - ElSaxo (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Why bothering to write to someone asking for a discussion, if on the other side the other guy don't even deem worthwhile to write a reply, probably even a "fuck you" is less disrespectful. Let's everyone doing whatever we want, in contrary case we can always revert edits and show the middle finger. - ElSaxo (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, if that's the way you want to take it. I had nothing to add so I didn't. If you want a "fuck you" instead I can supply that, and I'm tempted to answer your uncivil response in that way. Fortunately, I'm not as rude as you. Sjö (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Modern" tanks.

Thanks for that. IIRC I inserted that qualification some time ago. The point was that the first British, French, and German "tanks" don't meet the definition of tanks now, because they didn't have turrets, but they were called "tanks" at the time. That explanation needs to go in quite a few articles, actually, but you are right to make the change you have. Thanks again. Hengistmate (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi Sjö, I've closed your requested move and have moved the article to Clark County Shooting Complex as it didn't require a discussion,
If a small place or whatever changes name you can move it over instead of starting a discussion :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but when I made the request there was a copypasted article at the target name, so I couldn't do it by myself. Sjö (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No-go area intro restored

Hello, thank you for your alert and reverting it back. I added the missing intro. Sorry for that! Please check my other edits there to see if they were justified. Zezen (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Motive - Trollhättan school attack

I'll leave your edit alone. I was just following the legal definition of motive, not the psychological one.

http://thelawdictionary.org/motive/

"In Law, this is why one committed the crime, the inducement [the perceived benefit], reason, or wilful desire and purpose behind the commission of an offense. Whether the purpose was good, like helping someone commit suicide, or bad, like committing murder, it is not a deciding factor in deciding guilt or innocence. But, intent is. In a libel case, it has importance. It may be used by a defending attorney in punishment mitigation or by a prosecuting attorney as circumstantial evidence to prove guilt"

All the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzdzds (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad that you didn't take offense (or if you did, that you are polite so you don't show it). Sjö (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry. I haven't been 16 in quite a long time. I had a feeling you wouldn't want to debate the attribution of motive without it getting emotional again, so I just left you to it. Just briefly think about it when you're reading this, "How is believing your race is superior to another (racism) constitute a reason to kill?". The guy (in his perverted mind) wanted to (in his own perverted ways) limit migration. And his intent was to kill. Racism is a stance on the equality of races and, in itself, cannot constitute a motive to kill.
A good day to you! Dzdzds (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

reverts

I'd like to thank you for that revert. I'd also like to note that you have 2 Czech flags on your user page. Twomcvms (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hate crime

Please see my response to your comment on hate speech, I also felt the opening something like, Hate crime is both a crime and a law is awkward, which is why I changed it, but do not feel as strongly as I do about what I see is confusing about hate speech. If you read the cases that I linked you will see Scalia clearly stating in his decision "there is no hate crime in America" and this time seven of his fellow justices concurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Arodb: Sorry, but I've been busy outside Wikipedia and haven't had time to answer until now. I think your edit is an improvement, especially since it got rid of the awkward "crime and law" wording. It also follows WP:GLOBAL and I think the US position on hate speech is exceptional enough to be mentioned in the lede. I will make a change for clarity, since the text might be understood to mean that hate crime laws are unconstitutional in the United States. That would contradict the rest of the article as well as Hate crime laws in the United States. Sjö (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nazca lines

Your information on the Purpose of the Nazca Lines is outdated. You need to educate yourself better before thinking you are the final source. Geometric Hydraulic Connectivity has been explained by Luis H. Cabrejo. The Peruvian government agrees that the Nazca Lines is an early Water Management System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleywhitneyorozco (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ashleywhitneyorozco:There's not a single mention of "Geometric Hydraulic Connectivity" anywhere on the net, which in itself makes the term questionable. Also, your edit said nothing about the Nazca lines being an early water management system. Instead of writing "the newly proven theory of Geometric Hydraulic Connectivity is widely accepted and poses a positive solution to the distribution of water in modern-day society" as if you was talking about the water needs of today, you could have mentioned their use in the society that created them. With sources, of course, which were absent from your edit. Verifiability and sources are important at Wikipedia, so unsourced and questioned edits might be reverted. Sjö (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjö/Archive_4&oldid=1078506112"