User talk:Mats.bergsten

Welcome!
Hello, Mats.bergsten, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Win2day.be, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Win2day.be


A tag has been placed on Win2day.be requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful
Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Regarding your edits to Conspiracy Theory
You need sources that support the claim that psychopaths are more likely to go higher in hierarchical organizations, and you need a source that ties that to conspiracy theories. A link to our article on Psychopaths does not count, because our article on psychopaths does not discuss either of those points in relation to conspiracy theories, and no Wikipedia article is considered a relible source. User generated materials are not reliable source, and in fact anything with "wiki" in the name, or anything hosted on a Wiki-style website fails WP:RS.

Look at some of the other references in the article. You'll notice that the article summarizes and paraphrases portions of those sources (but not close paraphrase) instead of making original arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you need a source supporting the idea that psychopaths rising in hierarchies relates to conspiracy theories in some way. The source you brought up only describes the belief that some people have that foreigners are responsible for crime, which is not at all relevant to the material you were adding.  Stick to summarizing and paraphrasing reliable sources instead of making original arguments (because we do not accept original arguments).  Also:

Your recent editing history at Conspiracy theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Mats.bergsten: You seem to be trying to insert a section to say that some conspiracy theorists (?) claim that organizations contain a high concentration of psychopaths in upper management positions. If so, what reliable sources have unambiguously expressed this idea? I may be wrong, but it appears you started with your own original argument and then began seeking sources to help support it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I saw this user talk page. I'm quite a novice in editing Wikipedia and at first didn't understand the comments about what references were needed so I did some searches to find information about psychopaths. From my point of view I thought it was just common sense that 1. there are psychopaths in the world, 2. one goal for many of these individuals is to achieve power over others without regard to anyone else but themselves, 3. Companies and other organizations are run in hierarchies, with the (at least from my point of view) obvious conclusion that the hierarchical company structure is perfectly designed for psychopaths to, over time, flow to the top of any such organization where they can conspire with others like-minded to gain more power and wealth at the cost of others. When editing the page I wasn't sure what I was supposed to reference, so I started with just linking to the psychopath page on Wikipedia and then some other sites about psychopaths. Sorry for the mass editing, but now I understand more clearly what I need to do. As I don't have the time to pursue this at this point in time, I'll be back at a later date.
 * "Common sense" is not listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources. What you're calling common sense Wikipedia calls "original research," which Wikipedia does not use. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raja (företag) (November 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raja (företag) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Raja (företag), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Raja_(f%C3%B6retag) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David.moreno72&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Raja_(f%C3%B6retag) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David. moreno 72   11:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Raja (företag)


Hello, Mats.bergsten. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Raja".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)