Talk:Mikael Ljungman

Revised page 22 sep 2013
No information about new partners. There is no info supporting Mikael Ljungman, MLJ, partnership with Bagger or Freer today. Moved historic partnership to a new section Historic.

There are links between, media, Twitter and LinkedIn about, studies, advocacy, law degree, and topics of MLJ:s interests.

Education, at LinkedIn there is a Diploma in Thesis uploaded. Business DK and LinkedIn cross ref, political science.

The patent applications are now approved patents, changed to inventor and updated links to patents.

Updated info about Media Power and GetFugu

Historic, changed 6 years to 7. The arrest warrant was a European arrest warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interdependence22 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Conviction
Whether his conviction is under appeal or not, it is an undisputed and widely reported (at least within the Swedish press where his conviction occured) fact that Mikael Ljungman has been convicted of tax fraud. Given the resume like claims favored certain editors of this article, and the history of false pasts being created in press releases and even SEC filings by other Gizmondo executives in the first incarnation of the company, I think it is important not to let Wikipedia be abused to provide a squeaky clean profile for this man. So unless the appeal gets to court and is successful, it is important that it stays here to provide some balance to an otherwise self-promotional article. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious that certain editor Fugu Alienking, deliberately choose words, word settings and the way to structure his work is to color the article in a negative way. Even if conviction is mentioned in that sense in a published article it will not effect the legal meaning of the word. The correct wording in legal terms should be accused and indicted for.. Wikipedia is abused by Fugu Alienking and even in this talk he sets "false pasts being created in the press releases and even SEC fillings" in a Wiki article and a last attempt to "black wash" Ljungman though that obviously not aims at Ljungman. -- Needlepinch (talk), 12:23 (EST) 31 May 2008


 * Concerning the conviction: Ljungman is not appealing an indictment or an accusation. He's appealing a judgment handed down by a judge in court - a conviction. I also made some other edits and partial reversals:
 * I shortened the patent paragraph while keeping the relevant content. It was a direct quote from the patent's abstract, including that abstract's strange grammar. The aim was to make the same content both clearer and shorter.
 * I removed the Media Power section; neither the section nor its sources mentioned Ljungman. Media Power is beyond the scope of this article. Is Ljungman involved with any of Media Power's operations beside the Gizmondo relaunch? Unless we have a source on that, I see no need to discuss the company in any detail.
 * I rewrote the sentence "Carl Freer and Mikael Ljungman was cleared from any Media suspicions regarding their work for Gizmondo Europe Ltd.", omitting Carl Freer. Firstly, this article isn't about Carl Freer, and whether Carl Freer was cleared from suspicions or not should be discussed in his own article. Secondly, one of the sources given didn't mention Ljungman at all, and it didn't mention Freer's "clearance from media suspicion", either. Thirdly, the other source mentions that the liquidators' representative had questions to Ljungman and was satisfied by the results, but doesn't mention Freer in this context. Finally, we don't even report the media suspicions in the first place.
 * I removed the background information on Gizmondo and Tiger Telematics. Neither was at that point directly related to Ljungman; the source doesn't mention him. Again, the information is beyond the scope of this article.
 * I renamed the "early life" section; it dealt with his life from university graduation to present, not quite "early". Huon (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that Needlepinch has reverted your valuable contributions to this article. I have removed all the non-relevant text again. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found another article which deals with the indictment before the case came to trial in great depth. I have added it as a reference, as it gives far more details about the charges than the brief post-trial notes in the existing references. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article gives reference to extensively cover the indictment before the case came to trial, so it should stay. Needlepinch (talk), 9:59 AM 2 June 2008 (EST)


 * The referred 3P preform article need to be read in two sections accordingly. It seems that we once again stick fighting about the essence of articles. If the article is read properly it says that the receiver of the Invoices sent by 3P preform rendered a VAT input that could be deduct-able. Needlepinch (talk), 12:51 (EST) 3 June 2008


 * I have doubts when it comes to this edit version of Ljungmans conviction. Why use "serious" aren't every tax offense serious? Trying to understand how this article is formed I have read more of the, mainly 3 parties, contributions to this article, talks and discussion pages. It is my humble opinion that every attempt to augment an argument or translation is a violation to Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. It is my firm belief, in order to achieve the goals of "Presumption in favor of privacy" that we should explain in a less intrusive way the offenses presented in the article.--Riverside blue (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The word serious was a direct quote from the reference. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And what is it referring to? The level of offense? I just read a translation and I got the impression it was an argument?--Riverside blue (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Power Inc.
The contents of this section, specifically the listing of four divisions of the company, did not match with what is on the company website. The references only mentioned one of those divisions so I thought it safest to remove this until a better version can be produced, if the consensus is that it is relevant to the bio to go into details about this company's activities. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit to only reading the first reference properly before removing the section, it appears the section was lifted verbatim from the second reference. I suggest rewording it to not fall foul of any copyright laws, removing the first reference which doesn't contain anything that isn't covered by the second, and explaining on this talk page why a press release should be accepted as a Reliable source over and above the company's own website, so that others noticing the discrepancy don't jump to the same conclusion I have. I still think its inclusion in the bio, especially as a separate section, is overly promotional for an encyclopedic article, but if sufficient explanation is given here, I will not remove it again. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it was reverted without attention to my comments above. I have removed the superfluous reference, as it just repeats part of the press release that the other reference reproduces in full. I would still like to see my concerns addressed on this talk page about the reliability of the information in the press release where it contradicts information on the company's own website. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a repetition to the prerelease so it stays in the Fugu Alienking edited form. Neddelepinch (talk) 9:54, 2 June 2008 (EST)

I have looked at the Media Power website recently, and Mikael Ljungman is no longer listed along with the senior management or directors of the company. Since he is no longer with the company, and the company itself is non-notable, I'm not sure that this article is justified (not that it ever was IMHO). --Fugu Alienking (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Freer
Carl Freer has his own article, which is the appropriate place for information about him. There is no need to put blanket statements about him being cleared from wrongdoing that is otherwise not mentioned in this article. The statement that the liquidator accepted Mikael Ljungman's explanations about the transactions between his company and Gizmondo clears Freer from any perceived wrongdoing regarding the transactions listed in this article already. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fugu Alienking. The article doesn't mention any accusations against Carl Freer, whether by the liquidators or by the media. The "source" Needlepinch adds time and again is a press release by the liquidators. It does not mention any suspicions whatsoever, and it also does not mention that Carl Freer is cleared of them. But more to the point, it also does not mention Ljungman at all. This material would only be relevant to Ljungman if we had sources actually naming the media suspicions against Freer and explicitly linking Ljungman to suspicions against Freer. Huon (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The changed reference mentions: except for Carl Freer, who is now, due to his assistance and conduct, being excluded from the investigation.” ”Carl Freer has cooperated fully, and we do wish him every success in his new venture. His contribution to the investigation has not only saved us a considerable amount of time and cost, but added a great deal of financial value to the investigation. He did not go to the media and because of that, he got a lot of criticism, which was underserved. We regret that now, but he did keep his word and came through. Hence we took the unprecedented step of selling him back the assets, which happened in the end of 2007.” --It doesn't mentioned Ljungman in particular but it has bearing on the article about him, especially in the paragraph describing the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe Ltd. It also gives the same extended coverage Fugu Alienking uses to cover this angle and any other angle. Please also read Fugu Alienking earlier contribution regarding the transactions between the Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe Ltd, especially his use of wordings. Carl Freer is also Ljungmans partner and its a startup to the relaunch of Gizmondo. Needlepinch (talk) 10:17 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)


 * I agree that the new reference says many nice things about Carl Freer. But Freer has his own article, and that's where stuff on him belongs. This article is about Ljungman, and unless there's a conenction between Ljungman and Freer's deals with the liquidators (a connection not currently mentioned in the article or in the sources), Freer's deals should not be part of the Ljungman article. Ljungman's partnership with Freer concerning the relaunch is mentioned, the transactions between Ljungman's now bankrupt company and Gizmondo Europe are mentioned (in more detail than is called for, imho), and that seems to me to be all of Ljungman's involvement in the Gizmondo Europe bankruptcy. Or did I miss something? Huon (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no connection between Ljungman and Gizmondo Europe Ltd bankruptcy. I think this thread has grown from the wording where the reader can be set in thought there was a wrongdoing in the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe. In that sentence both Ljungman and Freer is mentioned in two different articles and the clearance of them both gives the article a proper balance . The article also briefly describes the media suspicion and the angle Fugu Alienking seems to adopt. The reference also links together with the buy out of the IP rights of the Gizmondo unit and Ljungmans involvement in the relaunch. Needlepinch (talk) 10:46 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)


 * So we agree that there is no connection between Ljungman and the bankruptcy except a pre-bankruptcy business deal that was explained to the liquidators' satisfaction. Then which part of the article does in your opinion give rise to the idea that "there was wrongdoing in the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe"? Wrongdoing by whom? And why isn't that sufficiently balanced by us reporting that the liquidators were satisfied with Ljungman's explanation? Why mention Freer's dealings with the liquidators at all?
 * Concerning Ljungman's involvement in the relaunch, the source doesn't mention him. How can it then link Ljungman to anything?
 * I've rewritten the Media Power, Gizmondo and Legal troubles sections of the article in order to make clearer what happened when, and who was or wasn't involved. Now they should be in the correct chronological order, it should be clear who was and who wasn't involved in what kind of wrongdoing (and in what other activities). I also removed the excessive details of that single transaction, whose importance was not explained. It's still mentioned in one of the realtid.se sources. Huon (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The wrongdoing questions raised after the Fugu Alienking contribution and how the transactions between 3P preform and Gizmondo was laid out. The SEC report was the start and the article about Ljungman and Freer ends the story by saying there was no strange or wrongdoing involved. Even if it not spelled out, it could be read so. My confusion regarding this is how we can OK to present a persons wrong doing but not his good doing. It's not sufficient balanced only buy saying there was no wrongdoing by Ljungman when it was a two party transaction and that second party now is involved in new business with Ljungman. A source doesn't have to mention a party directly, its enough if it's a reference to a specific part where both of them was mentioned. :The relaunch is mentioned in the first section of article about Ljungman so I presumed fact there. The article about IP rights links Freer as his business partner and that he or they have the IP rights, without theese rights they couldn't relaunch the Gizmondo unit. :I don't agree in total how the mix of Gizmondo, 3P and Media Power is laid out. Media Power is used for relaunching the Gizmondo and I think Media Power have the same value as the rest of the companies do its connects to present occupation, the relaunch and the partnership with Freer. There also some misassumptions in your text. Needlepinch (talk) 2:44 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)


 * Of course we should provide a balanced view. We currently don't report any wrongdoing by Freer (not even accusations of wrongdoing), and we report about Ljungman only what was published by reliable sources.
 * The IP rights article is indeed about Freer. It does not mention Ljungman as his partner, or that Ljungman also owns a stake in the rights (it even suggests otherwise). The Media Power website mentions Ljungman as one of the founders, but an independent source would be better. For example, the media (except Sandberg) seem to mention only Freer when they report about Media Power (more than 500 Google hits for "Media Power" and "Carl Freer", compared to two for "Media Power" and Ljungman - Wikipedia and Sandberg). The impression I get is that the partnership isn't equal, but we don't have any sources clearly stating that, either. I'll reword that sentence a little more.
 * I chose the section name because Ljungman's 3P Preform-based legal troubles apparently are unrelated to Gizmondo; for example, they predate the Gizmondo Europe bankruptcy by over a year, and they even predate the launch of the Gizmondo. On the other hand, 3P PreForm is the start of Ljungman's relation to Gizmondo and should be mentioned as such, and when Gizmondo Europe went bankrupt, the liquidators questioned the old business connections, again something we should mention (including the liquidators' satisfaction, of course). We could make a new section for Media Power, but it would be a pretty short section unless we add stuff not related to Ljungman, something we shouldn't do.
 * Would you mind pointing out my misassumptions? Huon (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've split the 3P PreForm section out from the Gizmondo section, to avoid any hint of confusion about Gizmondo's involvement in the legal issues. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought rewriting the sentence on the Freer-Ljungman cooperation seems useless without better sources. Huon (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Needlepinch, you are reading too much into my contributions. I found a connection with Gizmondo that predated his current involvement, and thought that if the article warrants a separate section for Gizmondo, then that section should cover the previous involvement. The fact that the reference for the previous involvement was an SEC filing about an insider transaction involving his company seems to have made you defensive, and you are now expanding the article to provide cover stories for third parties to compensate. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems, finally, that we agree on something Fugu Alienking. The 3P preform section should be split from Gizmondo in order to avoid confusion.
 * I can't se there is a competition between Freer and Ljungman, and you could always ask for more when it comes to different references. There are though a value describing Ljungman giving Media Power a section. He is founder according to the company website and there are buzzing news about the company.
 * I hope I'm not reading you to black Fugu Alienking. I'm a strong believer in balance.Needlepinch (talk) 6:36 PM, 2 June 2008 (EST)

Use of Primary Sources
Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources, especially in Biographies of Living Persons. In this case, we have an individual with a history involving crimes of dishonesty (a conviction for tax fraud and bookkeeping errors involving his companies), so primary sources need to be treated with special caution. For this reason, I have removed the Education and Work section, which was based entirely on a self created LinkedIn profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugu Alienking (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, this obviously shows you have a hidden agenda regarding Ljungman. This should also bee a subject under Delete or Keep discussions when that was alive. According to Wiki, its also ok to use non primary source if that source its the only source. Its also, by sources you added, confirmed by other sources that Ljungman ins an expert in the areas you can find in Linkedln. Needlepinch (talk


 * Also, the section on inventions, the sole source is a patent application. Until that application has been properly reviewed and approved by the USPTO, it is a primary source. It could well be rejected by the USPTO based on prior art, meaning that Ljungman may not in fact be the inventor after all. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, inventor in its strict meaning could first be proven if the application is not rejected. Needlepinch (talk)


 * If you agree, why did you add the claim back, again referencing the patent application, which judging by comments made by the examiner so far about prior art and failure to state an inventive step in any of the claims, has little chance of success. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia discourages the use of non primary sources, especially in Biographies of Living Persons, a self published material could be used WP:SELFPUB. The Linkedin part of the Article should be reinstated.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources establish notability as well as hopefully some fact checking of the primary source. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia encourage "reliable secondary" sources after primary sources. Linkedin is not a secondary source, it should be labeled as a self published source. This is a Biographies of Living Persons and self published material WP:SELFPUB could or should be in the article. Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid.--Riverside blue (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Current reversals

 * 1) There is no indication that Ljungman is still employed by or involved with Media Power. Their website no longer lists him among the biographies or board of directors. Unless there's some source stating that he is still connected with Media Power, I'd take the removal of his bio on their website as a strong sign of a severed relationship.
 * There are several company home pages that not mentioned all parties involved. No one of the the known founders is mentioned on the company web site. At Linkedin we can can se that both Ljungman and his partner Carl Freer holds their positions in the company. There are no signs of severed relationship, there are more signs of a evolving company. There are no signs out there that implicate a change of Ljungmans Bio and business activity. The connection to Media Power stays.--Needlepinch (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, LinkedIn is not a reliable reference. It is self published material, in this case, self-published by a convicted fraudster. What's more, blog posts by Hans Sandberg quoting Media Power Group's PR guy pretending to speak for the Gizmondo receivers are not reliable references either. After stripping away all the content that relies on unreliable references and the irrelevant content that is left, there is nothing left in this article except the fact that this man has been convicted of tax fraud. I don't think Wikipedia needs an article on every tax fraudster out there, so I am nominating this article for deletion. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Whether he works there or not, the company's partnerships with universities seem completely unrelated to Ljungman. Unless there's a connection to him, I don't see why we should include the company's activities in Ljungman's article.
 * If Ljungman was one of the founders and also at it seems still be active in the company, there is natural connection to the company evolvements and notable actions. If you look at other WIKI profiles there are a lot of company actions as well. It also reflects on Ljungman as a businessman. This also balance the article. The section should stay.--Needlepinch (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I restored the Gizmondo section which contained background information on Ljungman's now bankrupt company 3P Preform. That section's content (including the source) were referred to in other parts of the article. Huon (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needlepinch (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see there has been another round of reversals, citing things others have said in the deletion discussion as reasons for deleting content. Please leave judgment of which references were being referred to to the author of those comments. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I found Needlepinch's latest edits almost amusing. Of course he's not whitewashing Ljungman, he's just selectively removing anything negative about him. While the reliability of realtid.se may be debatable (I'd consider it generally reliable since it's a newspaper with editorial oversight), it's still better than blog entries, and Aftonbladet is clearly among the most reliable sources ever mentioning Ljungman (ok, that may not mean much, but still). And why, precisely, is the blog reliable enough to serve as a source for Ljungman's business ventures, but not for his arrest?
 * Indeed we have sources connecting Ljungman to Media Power; I'll re-add something to that effect. But I'd ask Needlepinch to abstain from blanket removals of sourced content. That might be considered vandalism. Huon (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its amazing that we in this part have some sort of consensus. One party "black wash" that might be considered vandalism and I'm trying to shade that black with some "whitewash". My so called "whitewash" is based on you earlier comments regarding the sources reliability. You trying to decide what sources is good enough to prove your point instead of using all kind of sources out there that could provide a bigger picture. lets try to use the sources we have at the moment and find some kind of consensus.--Needlepinch (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In this edit you removed content sourced to Aftonbladet, to realtid.se, and to Sandberg's blog, all in one grand sweep. Do you say those sources are unreliable? If so, there are no reliable sources which mention Ljungman. If not, please explain why you removed sourced content.
 * Concerning the "blackwash": I have yet to see Fugu Alienking adding anything which is unsourced. If the newspapers focus on Ljungman's legal troubles and other rather negative aspects, that's too bad for Ljungman, but reporting such content in Wikipedia is not a violation of WP:BLP, much less vandalism. Shading that black with some "whitewash" is fine and well if there are sources. If there aren't, then just removing sourced content and adding unsourced content in its stead is not the way to go. You're currently also close to violating the 3-revert rule.
 * In my opinion, among the current sources Aftonbladet and the Uppsala Nya Tidning are the most reliable, closely followed by realtid.se. Blogs in general aren't considered reliable sources, but Sandberg's article (the "giz" source) is mostly a translation of his realtid.se article, so I don't have any problems with that. I don't know what to make of the patent applications either way. The Tiger Telematics business report is in my opinion unnecessary, doesn't mention Ljungman, and I'm not sure what to make of its reliability. The Aftonbladet article basically reports the same details; we should use that instead. The sources that were used for Media Power's generosity towards universities were press releases and thus rather low on the reliability scale; since they don't mention Ljungman and we don't have anything linking Ljungman to Media Power's generosity, they shouldn't be included in the article. Huon (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Power Inc The source state founder. Reading earlier conversations on Discussion and Talk pages there was an initial unanimity. This WP:BLP article should include Ljungman as a founder of Media Power Inc and also Media Power Inc as current occupation.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which source? We're all looking for it, but unable to find anything even linking Ljungman to Media Power let alone as a founder. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know who or whom you refer or refers to when you write "We're all". I believe several of the contributor have read it, and it was my impression that you earlier was OK with the old source but you changed viewpoint after reviewed a newer release of Media Powwer Incs web site. I read it on Needlepinch (talk) talk page; Media Power Inc, Bios and News, and could also find it when i Google it. According to me it is now established he was a founder of the company, and meanwhile he was in the old bio page, at least one of the million dollar donations was finalized. --Riverside blue (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was the Stubs removed?--Riverside blue (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the article is longer and more detailed than a stub. Huon (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question? Reading the article about Ljungman and Freer it says they are working together with Gizmondo and Blowfishworks. Trying to access the Blowfishworks site its tagged with Get Fugu. Do anybody know if this is the same Get Fugu you can find at the Media Power Incs website, and at GetFugu website?--Riverside blue (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Power Inc (again)
If there are reliable references that link Ljungman to this company, as founder or otherwise, then please provide them. Otherwise continued insertion of this section is in violation of WP:BLP. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We have already, and you especially that there is a connection to the company. That is why we refer Ljungman as founder and not elaborate if he still is with the company or not. You refer references as BOGUS and that together with your other continued insertion of this section is in violation of WP:BLP and it could also be considered vandalism.--Needlepinch (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should not have used the ambiguous term Bogus. The URL was badly formed, and even after fixing the obvious problem, the article it was supposed to point to did not exist. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On re-reading the sources we have, I couldn't find a connection between Ljungman and Media Power. There was mention of Ljungman on Media Power's website, but that's gone. Unless there's an explicit source for the connection, it seems to be too minor a detail of his biography to mention in his article. I did add what the sources say about his role in the Gizmondo relaunch, but Media Power is not mentioned there. Huon (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the "founder" source to the article. But I'm still unconvinced that it's appropriate to report on Media Power's activities unless we can provide a source linking them to Ljungman. For comparison, it would be just as inappropriate to report on criminal activities by Ljungman's business partners unless those activities were linked to Ljungman by a reliable source. Huon (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
Under this section we may summarize everything where we reached consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Any consensus here involving single purpose accounts and potential sockpuppets is worthless. Even if independant editors are involved, circumstances change and new facts come to light, so editors should not be afraid to be bold and ignore anything written here. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Intro
 * The new intro seems to be OK.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Education & Work
 * The self published material seems to be OK.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Patent Applications
 * It seems we reached fully consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Media Power Inc
 * It seems we have reached Consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that by now we have an article on Media Power itself, we should shorten this paragraph to contain only information relevant to Ljungman. The activities of Media Power which cannot be shown to be connected to Ljungman should be removed. Huon (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It should stay, Ljungman is one of the founders to the company and the company is notable. As a rader or information seeker it gives valuable information. We have minimized company info in the article why it should stay.--69.120.82.161 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gizmondo
 * As patent application, it seems we have reached fully consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 3P PreForm Marketing and Research
 * It seems that we have found a reasonable writing.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the writing of this part is rather ugly and needs some serious copyediting. The grammar is horrible and seems to be the result of a machine translation from the Swedish sources. I'd have to guess what a "pre partly owned company" is supposed to be. I also still disagree with the term "bookkeeping error" as a label for what is described by the sources as systematic crime. Huon (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no other label for it even if you want to find something that sounds more criminal. From the article you can't decide what systematic refers to. To the article with more depth to Ljungman it also says nine bookkeeping errors why I change it to nine instead of eight to ten. i would be great if you could do something with the grammar.--69.120.82.161 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppets
With regards to Media Power, Mikael Ljungman, and Carl Freer, please note that User:Riverside blue, User:Truthmaker1, and User:Needlepinch appear to be either the same editor, or working in concert. Additionally, all three are single-purpose accounts as they have only contributed to these articles. --Ckatz chat spy  17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fantastic, a big problem is solved, my split personality!! If some editors have, in general, the same viewpoint they must be forced into one entity or remain silent. Should I also do the conclusion that other contributors, regarding to the above subjects and Gizmondo, do also match your analyze? or is this a last desperate way to silence some of us.--Needlepinch (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Connection to IT-Factory
In the Danish version of ComputerWorld it says that he was doing business with the missing Stein Bagger involved in a case about fraud for more than 500 million Danish kroner. Does anyone have some english source for this? Kinamand (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I suggest to let this play out a bit so the scale of Ljungman's involvement is clear, as a lot of the information in the articles that are around now seems to be based on speculation rather than fact (Ljungman is currently in court appealing the charges mentioned in this article, but at least one newspaper article I read claimed he was in court on new charges). --Fugu Alienking (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An article quoting Ljungman as admitting that he lent his car and credit card to the fugitive has now been printed, so there is definitely a notable connection there. I'll add only what is a direct quote from Ljungman for now, until prosecutors make an official statement about his involvement. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no articles about any new charges. The only yhing out there is the appeal. There seems to different claims out there but there is no official statements other from the article where Ljungman says he lend the car and that Ljungmans companies have done business with the Danish company. There are also some contradictions in several articles.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Headline text
Having read through the recently added references, I see that there has been further doubt cast on the claims made in Mikael Ljungman's LinkedIn profile. So I have reverted the latest change restoring this content to the earlier version by Fugu Alienking. If you wish to add it back in, I suggest you include the quote from an ex-customer of Ljungman's to counter-balance --124.13.220.194 (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the quote and it says nothing that contradict the LinkedIn profile. Its an anonymous source talking about Ljungmans expertise in mobile solutions.--Needlepinch (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Be more specific why we should remove the self published material. I cant find anywhere that the self published material should be wrong. Followed the published material it seems that Ljungmans connections grows. He have also several recommendations. To use the IT factory story to say the material doesn't work for me. The material should stay.--Needlepinch (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Self-published sources are bad, per WP:SELFPUB. Per our Biographies of Living Persons guideline, claims need to be sourced to reliable, third-party sources. If you need advice on this, feel free to ask. LinkedIn would count as self-published in this case. Dreaded Walrus t c 00:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. LinkedIn are a self published material y the subject him self, Ljungman. The Biography artcicle is not soley based on this self published material why it should stay. This material also subjctify Ljungman from other Ljungmans.--Needlepinch (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring to restore this, as consensus is against you. It should not be restored unless an agreement is reached here. --Ckatz chat spy  02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Needlepinch, you are selectively quoting Wikipedia policy here. Let me selectively quote another part of policy that might be relevant: In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. The fact is, the LinkedIn material is contentious, I have raised the point before that it is unverifiable, and now we have an anonymous CEO quoted in the mainstream press calling an aspect of what is written there into question. The fact that it is self-published by the article's subject does not guarantee that it is a valid source for Wikipedia. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How can it be a consensus against me when there is no substance in the reason to remove this part? Anonymous statements can hardly be a reason to remove self published material? The statements doesn't even aim at any part in the LinkedIn material, it aims at the "Expert on mobile solutions". This anonymous statement says that this part is some type of sponge without elaborations. There is also more than one reason to use the LinkedIn material except self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons, its also diversify and substantiate the biographic individual. As it seems there is more reason to keep it than remove it, and it seems that restoring is the only possible way to have this discussion.--Needlepinch (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly restoring disputed material is not appropriate. You need to wait until there is some form of resolution here, including (if need be) seeking opinions from the wider community. --Ckatz chat spy  19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the disputed then? -Self published material in general, -LinkedIn as a self published source in general?, -Some part of the information in Ljungmans LinkedIn material? -If self published material as LinkedIn is OK in it self, its not OK if there is media speculation or if someone may be to any interest in some case, witnesses included? --Needlepinch (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Media sources also use Ljungmans LinkedIn page as a source.--Needlepinch (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Appeal Result
I have tried to present a balanced view of the recent appeal result, labelling the overturning of serious fraud offences a partial victory for Ljungman, but it seems that Needlepinch would rather that everyone forget that Ljungman was ever charged with the overturned offences and others which according to the references have not been overturned. As Needlepinch would have it, Ljungman has been given 10 months in prison for "accounting", but that is clearly absurd. I would welcome contributions from unconnected third parties at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugu Alienking (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Needles to say, a overruled lower court conviction by a higher court means that the lower court conviction lack legal force, it doesn't exist in legal terms. You cant have more than one conviction so to speak. Its childish to say that the argument above, based on legal facts only, is used for the reader to forget. If you read all the articles, and also try at least for some minutes to understand the legal terms you can read out this; the initial prosecution contained two tax fraud offenses, 9 accounting offenses. The lower court convicted Ljungman for those crimes. Ljungman appealed. The two tax fraud offenses was dismissed, (to use further in this sentence is clearly wrong), there was clearly only two tax frauds offenses according to the refs, the 9 other accounting offenses seems to be unchanged. If you feel that 10 months for accounting is absurd, that should cause carefulness and also trigger some more investigation. I have ordered the judgment. I look forward to other contributions. The quote in the ref: "Först ska vi ta ställning om det finns förutsättningar att driva målet vidare till Högsta domstolen" doesnt aim at the reason to appeal, the reason to appeal is "Utredningen stödjer helt enkelt inte att han har gjort de brott som åklagaren påstår" the reason to appeal must come from there is something wrong in the conviction.--Needlepinch (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that you use that reference to back up, is the fact that Ljungman and his lawyer may consider a further appeal. So the text that you quote should be the text that says that, not an unattributed quote that alone says something very different. For the other material, I am basing my interpretation of events on the following quote from the referenced article: Åtalet för grovt skattebrott ogillas enligt domen och därför fick Ljungman sitt straff nedsatt till 10 månaders fängelse. Brotten som han nu dömdes för var bokföringsbrott och försvårande av skattekontroll. If you have a better reference, please explain. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to eradicate any mention of the overturned conviction. It has been covered by the newaspapers, Ljungman was convicted, that conviction was (partially) overturned. What's wrong with reporting these verifiable facts? Besides, 10 months for "accounting" is absurd because accounting is no crime, not even in Sweden, and we can be pretty sure that Ljungman was not convicted for "accounting". If Needlepinch objects to the translation "fraud", he should provide one that makes clear what exactly Ljungman did. Huon (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * bokföringsbrott och försvårande av skattekontroll, bokforingsbrott = accounting offense, (its not a fraud), försvårande av skattekontroll = impeded tax supervision. Accounting offense could be criminal by negligence or by intent. Accounting offense could be criminal if you don't save or safe keep your books and records or the electronic part of the book keeping, which seems to be the case here if you read the refs, "Att den digitala bokföring som skett inte återfunnits". When you cant access the electronic book keeping, and without to much work (print and collect) and in reasonable (short) time you can also, besides accounting, be convicted for impeded tax supervision, (you cant without to much work (print and collect) and in reasonable (short) time check if the income tax returned filed are correct. It seems that the lawyer share Fugu Alienking and others wiev that it is absurd sentence to get 10 month for accounting. I haven't read the judgment yet so i don't now all the details yet.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Åtalet för grovt skattebrott ogillas enligt domen och därför fick Ljungman sitt straff nedsatt till 10 månaders fängelse. Brotten som han nu dömdes för var bokföringsbrott och försvårande av skattekontroll.'' - The prosecution was dismissed on the two tax offenses (skattebrott may be interpreted as one crime only, but there was two) why Ljungman got his sentence reduced to 10 months. Its close to the bio section we have today.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ive done som changes in the text. All of this changes is things that stood before and was taken away. This site is med to a hate site. If all of you read what wiki says about biography then all of your accounts should be closed down. All of this changes i things he've done. you cant hide the truth about things he've done. This should not be a partial site, this is a impartial site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom a speech (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Freer partnership
There's currently a revert war going on concerning whether Ljungman and Carl Freer are partners or not. The only reliable source we have strongly suggests they are, with Freer calling Ljungman his "Co-Pilot". At that time Freer knew that Ljungman had been convicted of financial offences and was appealing the verdict. Now that the appeal was lost, Truthmaker1 seems to think the partnership was dissolved. We have no sources for such a dissolution, and while Ljungman is banned from running a business in Sweden, I don't see why he should no longer be a partner in Freer's American business ventures. Huon (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear that Truthmaker1 is a single-purpose account, as with Needlepinch. Their only purpose appears to be an attempt to "clean" any negative information from the articles. --Ckatz chat spy  19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthmaker1 does have a valid point concerning the broken Media Power link, though. That entire company seems to have vanished. Do we have any reliable sources for its fate? Huon (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply disagreeing with you Huon is NOT mean anyone is single purpose...quite the contrary...Ljungman is currently in jail and physically unable to contribute or be a part of ANY partnership or business. Logically your assertion is irrevelant..perhaps you are the single purpose account.. Truthmaker.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaker1 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthmaker, you should read the WP:SPA page on what constitutes a single-purpose account. You, only editing two closely related articles, obviously qualify. I, not so much. But being a single-purpose account is not itself a violation of policies. Removing sourced content, on the other hand, can be considered vandalism. And since Ljungman's prison term probably doesn't cut him off from the internet, he may still be able to contribute, and even if he wasn't, he may still be a partner without currently contributing any work. For example, he can't lose his status as "co-founder" of Media Power, Inc., and if he is co-owner, he didn't lose that, either. So a reliable source indicating that he is no longer related to Freer's projects would be necessary. Huon (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a repeat of what happened when Stefan Eriksson was imprisoned. Truthmaker1 comes in and cleanses Freer's record of any association with the convict. See previous edits. Interestingly, some of the suspicious transactions that Stefan and Carl engaged in with respect to Gizmondo also involved Ljungman, though that was well before his relationship with Freer became clear. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We still don't have any source for the dissolution of the partnership, and we have a reliable source of Freer embracing that partnerwhip although Ljungman had already been convicted. Even if the partnership were by now dissolved, we should keep mention of Freer's (and Ljungman's) important ex-partners. We also have a source explicitly linking Ljungman to GetFugu, so I don't see any grounds for removal of that link. Huon (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen!

What happened with the Clinton stuffs he mad??

If all of you read what wiki says about biography then you are some retarded peoples.

A biography got to be impartial!!!

If you people will keep on do this then i will make that wiki close all of your accounts!

If you want to make a hate site, then make another site or do that an the wall in your home. This a biography about his life. Not a biography that is made for hate.

If you read before what stood on this site, then this site i made to a hate site and is partial. He've done a lot charity! what happened with that?

You guys that took that away, put that back again!

And btw freer and Stien bagger is not a partner, because they are not, they was. That thing you write about it, is wrong because the meaning in it is that they still work with each other!

The time is ticking about the changes! what you took away from the good thing put it back and make you one hate site, Remember this is a biography! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom a speech (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Major cleanup performed
A couple things: First, many articles on related topics are in various states of protection, given nonneutral edits and inappropriate external links such as the ones I have addressed in my work on this article today. Please don't make this article a candidate for protection as well. This is a living person, so take care and treat the article appropriately. Cite your sources, reflect the source's information in your additions, keep neutral and be aware of the article's history. I am aware that many of the sources establishing notability relay facts that do not portray the topic positively, but that by itself is not a violation of NPOV. Whatever you think of this article's topic, sometimes notable facts do not favor the topic of an article, and relaying notable but unfavorable facts from secondary sources is not an attack on the topic. Second, aggressive and emotional comments in edit summaries are not appropriate. These summaries may be short and dispense with courtesies to meet length limitations, but they are still supposed to be factual summaries of your edits, not a means to attack other users or advance an agenda in the article's history. Thank you and happy editing. Universaladdress (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Revised page 31 mar 2015
I see that recent changes by a number of single purpose accounts have turned this article back into a white-washed resume for the subject. While I appreciate that he may have a desire to turn his life around now that he has completed serving his time for the crimes he has been convicted of so far in life, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, where if he is notable enough to warrant a biography, the biography must cover what he is notable for. I will therefore be removing all the information from self-sourced references such as LinkedIn, Twitter etc, which given the subjects previous convictions for dishonesty offences cannot in any way be considered reliable. Fugu Alienking (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To decide what a person is notable for or not express a personal valuation of the person and his or hers deeds. There is a tendency of “black-wash” in how old material and new material are removed, and what is to be highlighted. The biography must cover what he is notable for together with related biographical information. When it comes to self-published materials wiki is clear when it can be used or should not be used. Previous convictions don’t mean automatic deletion of self-published material, especially when it’s supported by other information. “Education level” is supported by newspapers, parliament information and self-published material. Parliament information, articles, donations to political candidates and activities on Twitter, Facebook, support “Political activities”. What kind of political activities do articles and twitter and Facebook communication support? Information has been deleted because of broken links due to time, without any effort to a quick search to find new link or source of information also shows a “black-wash” tendency. Accordingly I undid the deletion of self-published material and references, I found new links to political contribution. Tore N Johansson (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources, especially for biographies of living people. While the election ballots do mention a law degree, there is no mention of the type of law, and other (non-reliable) sources I found when trying to find a better reference for this suggested it was tax law, not criminal law as was claimed here.  The whole Education section seems based on a self-published LinkedIn page, and looking at the crimes that the subject is notable for, I wouldn't consider any self-published sources to be reliable in their own right.  180.75.159.118 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The earlier dispute was about the Education in it self. The ballot says Jur. Kand. and according to the english translation it is a law degree, master of law. If the dispute is law degree or not i don't understand the reason to dispute thesis? According to Linkedin the thesis is criminal law and the thesis is published there.Tore N Johansson (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the above, neither Wikipedia nor Linkedin are acceptable here as reliable sources. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELPUB could be acceptable if not: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. Tore N Johansson (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, the WP:SELFPUB content is unduly self-serving, and there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, which is why we are discussing here. The sections of the article to which is being added are primarily based on such sources. Do you see the problem yet? —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 09:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, i don't see the problem as you trying to serve it. In what way is the WP:SELFPUB unduly self serving in relation to this wiki article?. Do you mean that the WP:SELFPUB material in regard to thesis is self serving in the perspective of overall content in this article? According to you there is a doubt to it*s authenticity, which means? Are we uncertain if the LinkedIn page is connected to the right person? Education level is established. The argument of it's authenticity must then aim at thesis? The only "in general" reasonable doubt you have raised it's based on character, not the content in it self. According to me, the WP:SELFPUB material serves this articles biographical purpose. Tore N Johansson (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead of the article is an almost bizarre misrepresentation of facts, based on sources that either don't say what they're cited for or are misrepresented beyond recognition. He's an "inventor"? A "political scientist"? Says who? No, a patent application on its own does not make him an inventor. He's "working with law, political science and different developing and social impacts projects"? What the source actually says that after his prison term he was living in a halfway house and began studying political science. We don't even give the correct title for that newspaper article. The election website says he's a "jur.kand.", roughly equivalent to a master's degree, but it doesn't provide any of the additional details it's cited for, and I rather think WP:BLPPRIMARY argues against using public records of that kind as references. Ljungman's main claim to notability, what the lead should focus on, clearly is his criminal career and his various convictions for fraud and tax crimes, not his "inventions" or "political scinece". His studies could be mentioned somewhere far down the article; they shouldn't be the primary focus. I do not think a convicted fraudster's self-representation can be considered reliable even about himself. Huon (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a living person, so take care and treat the article appropriately. Whatever some editors think of this article's topic, sometimes other or new notable facts do not favour the earlier topic of an article. The tendency of the topic can't be the "focus" of an editor or the article; the living person should be the focus. In recent media articles there was a "public" interest towards, earlier criminal conviction in contrast to political science studies and parliament election participation. It's seems from that perspective that the notability focus have changed. Investor doesn't stipulate approved patent. It's also commonly used when a person seeks patent on a system. It's not misleading but certainly of interest. Political scientist is not an education level. If we consider interactions on Twitter, official political Facebook page and at least one article we can ad political views and work to the politician in order to get a more biographical article. The subjects law degree must be of some interest in it self, even if the notability is the criminal convictions, certainly if the article is a portrait of a living person. According to Stockholm University homepage Jur Kand should be translated as Master of Laws (LL.M.) WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't argue against using public records from parliament elections to establish a fact, but rather using court documents and similar. Self-published material should not solely be removed as reference in an article based on character. A recent event, such as parliament election participation contradicts a narrow evaluation of character. Linkedin ref should stay when it doesn’t contradict third party references. Tore N Johansson (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:WEIGHT. If his "political science" and his "inventions" were all Ljungman had done, we wouldn't have an article about him at all. What he's notable for, and what in-depth third-party coverage focuses on, is his conviction as an accomplice of Stein Bagger in the IT Factory fraud, plus his earlier association with Carl Freer in the Gizmondo debacle. That's what our article should focus on, too. If his candidacy for office or his law degree are of interest, where's the news article about Ljungman headlined, "Lawyer running for Riksdag"? Instead we have, "Bagger-mate released from jail". Huon (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that singular events doesn't reach notability. But It doesn't matter what we think or what third party have focused on in the past, when the subject have reached notability level and when it seems to be a wish or reason to keep this article. I believe we all agree on that this is a biographical article. The focus on the article should therefore be on the subject, without tendency. It seems that the candidacy are of general interest. There is several multi national, third party articles about the subjects candidacy. The question is, would the subjects candidacy be of such interest without the earlier convictions? It's because of this general interest self published material and public interaction thru twitter and Facebook could be of biographical interest. Tore N Johansson (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Huon is correct--self-published content, Twitter and Facebook correspondence are of nearly negligible use, unless supported by reliable third party sources. The intro is a vanity description. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Education: Political Science ref not only LinkedIn, also from Danish Business dk article, used as a ref in this article. Millionaire came from a old article from Aftonbladet used for other references in this article. Tore N Johansson (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many things written about Mikael Ljungman in old Aftonbladet and other Swedish newspaper articles. I find it curious that you pick out just the fact that he is a millionaire as the only contribution to this encyclopedia, and not for example where the article alleges those millions of Swedish krona might have come from, which is the main purpose of the article. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 16:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I do understand You because I’m equal curious about your arguments to erase certain facts due to old broken links, especially when the facts without any effort can be retrieved by a simple search. I believe the fact millionaire came from an old third party reference, already used in the article, to describe events and facts about the subject. I still believe this is a biography and not a single event article. I believe we share the same view what triggered “notability”. I’m even more curios when you now ask me to speculate with you, why the third party source mentioned the subject as a millionaire and to exclude if there could be more than one reason how he could have achieved such wealth? Is the main purpose of this article to "prove" that the fraudulent achieved money is the reason for the subject’s wealth and the third party statement? Tore N Johansson (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

To exclude certain facts it's also a cherrypicking method used to create a tendency. If there are 7 cherries in article, shouldn't we addressed them all, sour as sweet? A biography is a detailed description or account of a person's life. It entails more than basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death—a biography also portrays a subject's experience of these events.Tore N Johansson (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to millionaire there is question marks needed to be set, due to the fact we don't know the actual status today. Tore N Johansson (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Focus of the article
Per WP:WEIGHT the focus of the article should be determined by the focus of coverage in reliable third-party sources. No such sources discuss Ljungman's inventions. Instead, they focus on his involvement in various tech businesses and related crimes, especially the IT Factory fraud. His low-level political career is not at the core of his notability; news reports on his candidacy use headlines such as "Known criminal on KD's parliamentary list" - the focus is obvious, the only reason he's worth an article is his status as "one of Sweden's best-known financial criminals", not the candidacy in itself. I'll remove some trivia not based on detailed coverage in secondary sources and improve the references. Huon (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems I said exactly the same things almost a year ago. The points I made back then, particularly WP:WEIGHT, have not been refuted, yet the page was turned into something that downplayed the reasons for Ljungman's notability and shifted the focus from what he's know for to what he'd like to be known for. I don't think that's helpful. Huon (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The focus of the article should not be determined by your intentions or your wish to swipe the brush. This article is about a living person. If his political candidacy was of trivial interest to the public there wouldn't be any articles about the subject. Its instead of special interest because of his background. All non disputed information about the person are of interest. You want to exclude details in the article related to political career and activities, patent application related to tech and how he express his political views in social media. The form of the article after reverts made by you is clearly bias. The article in its earlier form doesn't exclude the information you feel should be in the article. Tore N Johansson (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree his political career is of "special interest" due to his background. In fact it is only of interest due to his background, which you would like to scrub from the lead. That won't do. He is, according to Aftonbladet, Sweden's most well-known financial criminal. Politically, he's an unelected former candidate from a minor party. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the content of the body of the article, which in turn should summarize (per WP:WEIGHT what reliable sources have reported on Ljungman. We do not, however, summarize "all uncontested information" - that would overload our articles with irrelevant trivia and crowd out what the people are notable for. There are no third-party sources on the patent applications, and Wikipedia is not an aggregator of social media. If Aftonbladet or Realtid.se have discussed his inventions or his social media exploits - then it's time to include them in Wikipedia. Not when Ljungman tweets or writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper that since apparently has ceased to exist.
 * I also have to note that you misrepresented one of your own sources' titles. I assume "Mikael Ljungman kommer ud af faengslet" sounds good, but what Berlingske actually used as the title for their story is, "Bagger-makker kommer ud af fængslet" (which translates as "Bagger-mate comes out of prison"). The focus of that story is obvious, and it's not Ljungman's "social impacts projects", which in fact are not mentioned in the source at all. I take a very dim view of misrepresentations of sources. Huon (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed Mikael Ljungman kommer ud af faengslet" to Bagger-makker kommer ud af fængslet. It means the same thing, but i highlighted his name. Even if the focus of the article is his release from the prison, the secondary focus of the article that he is studying political science at Stockholm University at time. The political science study aligns with the political activities and other sources. If his political activities are of interest same should apply to his views. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the content of the body of the article, which in turn should summarize (per WP:WEIGHT what reliable sources have reported on Ljungman. The sources of political contribution and patent application are published on such reliable sources. Neither patent applications or political contributions could be irrelevant trivia or crowd out what the people are notable for. Your reasons doesn't ad up. Maybe its mor notable that he became a parliament candidate after his convictions than the convictions in it self. I still interpret your way to minimize the article as bias and mudslinging. Tore N Johansson (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you feel completely removing any mention that Sweden's most well-known financial criminal might indeed be a criminal from the lead does not constitute the trivia crowding out the reason Ljungman is notable enough for an article at all, I see little purpose of continuing the discussion and have instead asked for more community input at WP:BLPN. I'll just say that neither the patent applications nor public records such as the campaign contribution lists are the kinds of sources we should use for biographies of living persons - the former are primary sources that we cannot interpret without a secondary source doing so for us, and the latter explicitly should not be used per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Huon (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced/poorly sourced and ungrammatical edits by single purpose account
The single purpose account User:Tore N Johansson is repeatedly adding material which is at best very poorly sourced. His sources is his latest edits include twitter, youtube, primary records, and a pile of random websites which seem to be currently down. In addition he is putting back text which is ungrammatical or in some case completely meaningless (what on earth is "#wash" supposed to mean in the lead?). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tore N Johansson's edits clearly fail core content policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. He has repeatedly misrepresented sources and added content based on primary sources to make Ljungman look better. This diff is a prime example of the whitewashing going on here. Huon (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Following the consensus at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive235 I have once again removed the trivia without coverage in secondary sources. Huon (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Patents
There is no reason for this section to exist at all except as a transparent effort to boost the individual's credentials. Including an exhaustive list and history of trivial patent applications, most of which were denied, is not at all standard in a biographical Wikipedia entry, even when the subject is known primarily as a bona fide inventor or engineer, which is far from the case here. I have deleted the section and will continue doing so until offered a convincing rationale by a consensus of editors who are not single-purpose sockpuppets (you know who you are). Grifter84 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The political contributions section is also completely irrelevant and sourced almost entirely to primary sources.  The rest of the text is more debatable, but those two sections have no place in the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also agreed, except with the "almost" in Jonathan A Jones's characterization of the sources for the campaign contributions. They are all primary sources. Huon (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct. One of the websites was down when I wrote that so I wasn't sure, but yes it's a primary source as well. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the WP:SPA is continuing to add this material against policy and consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mikael Ljungman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110809095436/http://www.unt.se/article/1,1786,MC=77-AV_ID=725894,00.html?from=latestnav to http://www2.unt.se/article/1,1786,MC=77-AV_ID=725894,00.html?from=latestnav

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)