User talk:Sjö/Archive 2

LDC and LLDCs article
Thanks for the change to the LDC article, please help to monitor the LLDC article, same user has been adding countries that are not on the UN list.Phd8511 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added both LLDC and SIDS to my watchlist. Sjö (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, for reverting vandalism off my talk page. Much appreciated! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! :) Sjö (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Divorce law in lowercasessweden
You left a message on my page saying that I had done a copy and paste move and advising me of where to find info about moving pages. Not the case. I am an experienced editor who has been around for years and moved quite a number of pages. If you care to go to the talk page of that article, you will find a message from me, instructing the obviously very new and inexperienced editor on how to format headings. I don't know who did the cut and paste, but i presume it was the original editor. Amandajm (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

 * For the benefit of other editors here I want to say that I don't use sockpuppets. When I post as a logged in user, I never use any other name than Sjö. Just so there's no misunderstanding.Sjö (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 02:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

MegGriffin55
I've been here since Decmeber 8th last year! And I've editing the goldfish page since!--MegGriffin55 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good for you! I hope that you stay and contribute to the encyclopedia. This edit, however, didn't make the article any better, nor did this which I saw when I checked one of your earlier edits before I decided to put a warning on your talk page.Sjö (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, I was fixing it and I forgot about the steak thing still being there 'K? And "Good for you!"? You say literally would say to a five year old! --MegGriffin55 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you follow the links above? When you replace a whole section with " golfish the only snack that smiles back" that is vandalism, nothing else and "steak" had nothing to do with it. IMO the warning was well deserved. I have edited since 2004 but if I pulled something like that I would be first warned and then blocked if I kept it up. I suggest you drop it and move on.Sjö (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I was fixing that too by undoing it, but when I hit "save" I thought it was the commercial section (which I created just to let you know [nix that, I meant characters section]). Is that to much to ask from a girl who has problems with things?! --MegGriffin55 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you're saying, but as long as you keep on making useful edits, you'll get no more complaints from me (and I see that most of your edits have indeed been useful).Sjö (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(sighs)You're right, I'm sorry, I'm just always so tired and sensitve.--MegGriffin55 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello you nazi piece of shit
Please be aware i made 1 edit and 2 reverts please learn to count, it takes 3 reverts to break 3rr now please fuck off and go back to your nazi policy enforcement and supporting of slave labor

you cunt94.168.204.89 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've answered on your talk page.Sjö (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

dispute
First i am restoring the censored information this user chose to remove from his page as it is relevent to this post

--censored-information Please be aware i made 1 edit and 2 reverts please learn to count, it takes 3 reverts to break 3rr now please fuck off and go back to your nazi policy enforcement and supporting of slave labor

you cunt94.168.204.89 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC) ---censored-information---

As to your comment on my talk page i once again state i have only made two reverts not three so once again learn to count secondly if you would like users to be civil do not go on to there talk pages and accuse them of things they have not done and make idle threats. finally if you feel something needs a citation please add the [citation needed] tags instead of vandalizing the page for a second time also if you again choose to censor this information i will repost it adnauseum as you clearly act like and are a nazi piece of shit94.168.204.89 (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the page history and from the page itself (about one inch above your latest post) I didn't delete your words. Your accusation is as baseless as your opinion that ReCAPTCHA is slave labour and your opinion that removing unsourced statements is vandalism. Sjö (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Testosterone
I reinserted again the claim of testosterone in diabetes mellitus's articles, this time I wrote this claim in the paragraph "Research". I would like to underline that testosterone issue HAVE to be mentioned even if it is still at research level, there are no wikipedia rules that confirm your claim that research article should not be mentioned, Wikipedia scientific articles are full of research artcles. I would also like to underline that the removal of scientifiv articles is vandalism.

It has to be underlined that it is research, but the result of it CAN NOT be censored. I hope you will not delete the articles.--Moscone (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The proper place to discuss this is at the talk page for the article, not here. I suggest that you continue the discussion at Talk:Diabetes mellitus as it is a main article and because the discussion has already started there. A word of advice, though: throwing accusations about vandalism and censorship around isn't going to win you any debates on Wikipedia.Sjö (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting 3D printing
I noticed you reverted the resolution section of 3D printing. Unfortunately, this has introduced an error into the text. The layer thickness of a 3D printer is typically from 50 μm to 100 μm. This is the same as 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm (or 0,05 mm to 0,1 mm using a comma decimal separator). I believe the author of the resolution section was trying to use both methods of expression because many people considerable less familiar with micrometers than they are with millimeters. Therefore, s/he used both forms in the section.

I hope this explains why the units have been altered yet again.

Best wishes, CaviaPorcellus (not logged in because I am not at my own computer)


 * I was reverting edits made by a vandal and apparently I didn't check the edit when I rolled it back. I'll be more careful in the future.17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

fact
why are the external links spam the are sites specifically related to the subject matter of the entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.255.132 (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:EL: suitable links are e.g. to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". In my opinion, these links didn't add to the understanding of the subject. Sjö (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

 * Thank you! Much appreciated!Sjö (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sweden
Hello Sjö! And sincere thanks for all the good work you do!

I am a little concerned about edits like this one though. You edit summary is a bit far fetched in that case, I think. We must be careful not to be perceived as guards of the article on Sweden with a mission to remove any- and everything negative, even when it's well sourced, relevant, interesting and justified for inclusion. That article is already pretty rosy, bordering on biased. There are serious problems in and with every country on earth. Swedes are traditionally not very good at dealing coolly with those that concern Sweden, in my experience. Hope you are not offended by my frank reminder. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how my edit was about excessively removing anything negative, unless of course you consider economic equality to be a universally good thing, which is debatable. As it stands now the text is a number that is rather meaningless without comparison to other countries. I'll let it stand for now, but I'll ask for clarification in the article. And talking about edit comments, I thank you not to throw accusations of POV around in the future.Sjö (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! Touchy subject. No use trying to be diplomatic this time. Now we're no longer on good terms. Because you can't seem to be able to be politically neutral in some of youre edits. I bought into your shrewd innocent act last time around.
 * How revealing! - "economic equality ... a universally good thing ... is debatable" - if that's not your POV and if you're not the one throwing it around, not I, then I'm afraid we're not communicating in the same language. You're removing that and asking for comparisons to other countries was outrageosly biased. As if Sweden's greedy top 10% sitting on 71% of that country's assets needs comparison with anything other than political and humanitarian ethics. From now on, I'll really be keeping an eye on you and your apparent friends in that 10% for more of the same sort of attempted cover-ups, rest assured. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's up to you if you want to take a content dispute personally. --Sjö (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have the bad habit of a policician, to try to throw back at me, again, what you are guilty of yourself. You are the one engaging in personal POV editing, not I. I am trying, again, to guard against your biased input, by recommending neutrality. Quite cordially at first. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Re user talk:121.215.173.144
All of my additions to talk pages are there in order to improve the main article. In the case of the notion of ownership, if the notion is a myth or fairytale, then there is no need for a main article. Don't open your mouth without knowing the full details. Scandinavian legal realism is still alive and well for your benefit. 121.220.135.2 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.135.2 (talk)
 * Sorry that I reverted your edit. To avoid that in the future you might want to add something like (Ash logged out) to your signature.Sjö (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for stepping up on the vandalism to Midwestern United States. I am rather sure that an administrator would see what is going on but I think it helps to have another editor also revert some of the vandalism and to support my notice from the absurdity the vandal posted there. I hope a stop is put to this promptly. Donner60 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Stubborn ba#rd, wasn't he? 05:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Loki article: Thanks
Hey! Thanks for catching my mix up here. I must have misread what was going on. The perils of multitasking... &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know how it is. Been there, done that... Sjö (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Odd item on internet about Religious Slaughter
I found this at auction. It is a copy of the response of the Board of Deputies of British Jews to a British Admiralty testing of RPSM (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I'm not interested. Why do you think I would be? Except for accepting your apology I haven't interacted with you since April 1st, and as far as I can see I haven't edited Shechita, sv:Skäktning or related articles for even longer than that. I prefer it that way for now, so please don't contact me again. I do not want to be involved in agonizing discussions with you again and I do not want to be called names by you again. Please, just let me be.Sjö (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What names? I have never called you (or anyone else) names. I apologized for saying that I was not one of your subordinates (I paraphrase) because I felt that you and another editor, Wvs in chorus saying I had no right to edit was not correct. On the English WP I had been given encouragement by adminstrators there to go ahead and look for sources etc. But the language I used was too strong when I was told I had a political agenda and should remain silent, and I apologize for being impolite.


 * Someone trying to help me here is wondering how me criticizing a piece of legislation amounts to a personal insult. These are two separate theses: 1) The Swedish legislation on religious slaughter is racist. 2) Editor xyz is racist. I said 1): I did not say 2).


 * I am flummoxed and have no answer. I did not call anyone a racist or imply it or intend it.
 * Meanwhile, there are still a couple of edits I need to do on the Swedish articles Skäktning and Dagguereotype. I have been told to be a good boy here and after a while I should be let back on the Swedish WP. RPSM (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat, just let me be. Please don't contact me. We seem to have different views of what has been said, let's just leave it at that.Sjö (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Except for accepting your apology I haven't interacted with you since April 1st, and as far as I can see I haven't edited Shechita, sv:Skäktning or related articles for even longer than that. Correction On the 8th April 2011 you were asking me for references in the Swedish article on Religous Slaughter. But as I am permanently blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia (I was told on your recommendation) I am unable to insert a reference into the article now, or ever. The place is marked "source required". Is it permissible for me to get a friend to do it?RPSM (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise until you began posting on my talk page how deeply I have been affected by the controversy on Swedish Wikipedia. For my peace of mind, I ask you again: please do not contact me. Please don't post here on my talk page or even email me. I have avoided contact with you because it upsets me very much, so please don't contact me, not even to answer this post.Sjö (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't play the injured victim. I'm the one who is blocked from Swedish Wikipedia (for ever) and you were one of the two administrators who blocked me. If you had the heart you could unblock me. If you need a reasoned argument to do so I can provide one. I submit that the alleged reasons for blocking are not substantiated in the posts and that the communication in connection with the blocking was not satisfactory (understatement - non existent) a kangaroo court and several misrepresentations of the truth - i.e. stretching interpretetation of Wiki rules beyond their limits. One of the reasons given is that I do not respect administrators (called other wikipedians or some such). How can I respect people who are so bloody rude? In that case it becomes the kind of behaviour expected of people in a totalitarian society.


 * But the principles here are not niggling questions of detail. They are the building blocks of a democratic society. I am only being fair to you by giving you the opportunity to put this right and remove my permanent block on Swedish Wikipedia (that you yourself instigated) before I go further with presenting a case to whomever it may concern. I repeat, I can give you cogent reasons for removing the block if you need them. I never had an opportunity to speak for myself and defend myself (as you allege) and the block came lightning fast, without warning. Your peace of mind is way down the list of priorities. Don't be narcissistic.


 * What I was writing on the Swedish talk pages was because when I started editing the article directy, my edits were take out immediately with no discussion although they were from authoritative sources. Then I was under attack on the talk pages apparently for political reassons. At the time I was writing, the DIALREL EU project had not yet started, and it was not easy for me to give authoritative references. But at this date there is plenty to show that what I was saying then is a point of view that has a lot of backing from scientists and is not a crack pot theory, but a view held by most scientists in most parts of the world.RPSM (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Enough is enough. You don't get to post inflammatory and insulting post, leave them up for hours and then, after I've read them, delete the text and pretend you never posted it. I've restored your posts, both this one and the one at Why am I blocked? but for clarity I've struck through the restored portions.


 * I am, again, astonished at your blatant misrepresentations of the thruth. You have been lying and distorting the truth since your first post in this latest exchange when you claimed that no reason was given and I immediately pointed you to your Swedish talk page where the reasons were given and which you read after your block. As I said before, nothing good will come of further discussions here. I request that you don't post on my talk page again, nor contact me in any other way on or off-wikipedia.Sjö (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why can't you call someone a liar in (the Australian) Parliament? It has to do with the rules of debate - that it is ok to get hot under the collar but not to insult people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPSM (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You erased my post completely where I gave a brief summary of my position:
 * What I was writing on the Swedish talk pages was because when I started editing the article directy, my edits were taken out immediately with no discussion although they were from authoritative sources. Then I was under attack on the talk pages apparently for political reassons. At the time I was writing, the DIALREL EU project had not yet started, and it was not easy for me to give authoritative references. But at this date there is plenty to show that what I was saying then is a point of view that has a lot of backing from scientists and is not a crack pot theory, but a view held by most scientists in most parts of the world. RPSM (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to answer and I agree with you further communication is pointless as you seem to be sabotaging the communication process. RPSM (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the text. I've added your text above, in italics. This will, I hope, be my last post in this exchange.Sjö (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my comment that you are sabotaging the communication process. Not so. Now my post is up it is ok. Also, I note that your behaviour has been correct and without prejudice throughout. No complaints as far as you are concerned. The Swedish site is rather fragile when it comes to controversial subjects. I think it is the subject matter that provoked quite a lot of hysteria. RPSM (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * With reference to your comment to me on the Shehitah article talk page to "assume good faith" On a side note, I would like to point to the behavioral guideline Assume good faith in regards to this question, since I read your (now withdrawn) text about editors with an "agenda". How's about upping the good faith behavioural guide here. I can't use article talk pages to make personal remarks. If you think a mediator might help, then I will see what I can do. I would like to see this thread binned or archived or whatever. I edited what I wrote here to try and make it better. Then you dove in and did your edit including the crossing out of my posts and erasing others (it's all in the history). At the moment there seems to be a rotation of various posts I wrote appearing and disappearing in rotation. I don't know if you are doing this or if it is automatic. But don't give me orders on how to think when this display is still up and "assume good faith" cannot include you putting a personal block on communicating with you while, at the same time, you are giving me orders on how to think and behave. This smacks of the military. I can't get personal on article talk pages, so please don't provoke me there. I am a serious editor. See the edits I did on Daguerreotype. RPSM (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why am I blocked?
(Title added by Sjö)

I have been told that you are responsible for initiating a permanent block on me at Swedish Wikipedia. I do not know why I am permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia and no reason has been given. Do you know why? Cordially, RPSM (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A message explaning the main reasons was posted on your Swedish talk page sv:Användardiskussion:RPSM on April 4, 2011, by one of the blocking admins. As you have visited and edited your talk page after that date, I'm certain that you have read the text. Other sections of your talk page contain more detail on the several conflicts and other problems with your editing style that has been brought to your attention. Since the text is there on your talk page, and since you have answered most of the relevant posts (thereby proving that you have read them) I am astonished that you can make the claim "no reason has been given". Sjö (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will answer this when I have had time to give it a lot more thought and to write something not too long. RPSM (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It is useful. RPSM (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I found this as well:
 * 4 april Efter moget övervägande begär jag blockering av RPSM (diskussion • bidrag (raderade) • loggar (om) • stats • hantera rättigheter) som under lång tid har trollat och agerat i strid med WP:ETIKETT, inklusive att beskylla andra användare för rasism. Hans användardiskussion visar en provkarta på de konflikter h*n varit inblandad i. RPSM har gjort goda redigeringar, men det som slutligen övertygade mig att åtminstone ett syfte är att reta andra användare var denna redigering där h*n svarar på en begäran om indentering med ett "OK" som inte är indenterat, varefter han vägrar kommentera.Sjö 4 april 2011 kl. 20.30 (CEST)
 * Evighetsblockerad, självklart inte pga en missad indentering. Det är synd att det här inte kunnat hanteras bättre med kortare blockeringar succesivt, men jag såg ingen annan utväg än en evighetsblockering. /Grillo 4 april 2011 kl. 22.32 (CEST)


 * "After deliberations that have finally reached maturity, I request blocking RPSM, who, for a long time has "trolled" (?) and acted contrary to WP:ETIQUETTE, including accusing others of racism. His talk page gives an overview of the conflicts he/she has been involved in. RPSM has made good edits, but what finally convinced me that one of his objectives at least to irritate other users was this edit where he/she answers a request to inden with an "OK" that is not indented, whereupon he refuses to comment further. Sjö 4 April 2011 20:30 (CEST)"
 * "Blocked for ever, of course not for a missed indentation. It is a shame that it was not possible to have dealt with this by means of shorter successive blocks, but I saw no other way out than a permanent block. Grillo 4 April 2011 22:32 (CEST)"


 * No comment for the time being, except to say that the "No" was not deliberately unindented (you read evil intentions emanating from me that were non existent) and my main objection to my permanent block on Swedish Wikipedia is that I was not given sufficient time to defend myself. This I can do from outside Wikipedia if the occasion arises. My contention is that there are factors other than my personality or editing style involved here, I was under extreme stress (as you admit you were too - greater than you realized at the time, you say) in my case I would call it cyber bullying from agenda-driven administrators as only one factor. Another factor is that I have now located enough sources to prove unequivocally the points I was making whereas then I had less definitive indicators.


 * he purpose of Wikipedia is not to form a pally community as the primary objective. The task in hand is to provide information that is accurate and true. How can people who have read little or nothing on an obscure subject (shehitah - the kosher slaughtering debates) other than newspaper articles be so sure that there are or aren't enough sources to prove or disprove this or that? They are relying on the media for their information, and The New Totalitarians by Roland Huntford gave a picture of the Swedish media dissemination a deliberately false picture of certain polical issues. RPSM (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If any good were to come out of this, it might be some guidelines for administrators that I dug up somewhere in the course of my gathering material. I bear no grudge, and will not say anything until I think of something constructive. RPSM (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think nothing good will come of any further discussions here. I disagree with some of your statements, just as you disagree with some of mine, so let's just leave it at that and not continue this thread. Thank you.07:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the reasons for my block were 1) that I didn't indent a comment (OK) and this showed dumb insolence 2) that I called others names: racist or antisemite. This charge is erroneous as I never did this. However, there is an accusation from Grillo that I called him an antisemite. When I countered that I did no such thing, he said that I thought (how can he know what I think?) he said that I thought that everyone who supports the Swedish Animal Protection Act (that is worded exactly the same as Hitler's and Mussolini's race law) is an antisemite. I think this is far fetched, and I am sure others would agree. My question to you now is as follows: You blocked me for allegedly calling others racist. Can you provide a link to any single instance of this to save me searching, as I know I did not say this. Link, please. I was on Jimbo Wales' page about this, but now I can't find the post. So sorry to disturb you like this, but I hope you can oblige. I wish you well, RPSM (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Enough is enough. You don't get to post inflammatory and insulting post, leave them up for hours and then, after I've read them, delete the text and pretend you never posted it. I've restored your posts, both this one and the one at Odd item on internet about Religious Slaughter but for clarity I've struck through the restored portions.


 * I am, again, astonished at your blatant misrepresentations of the thruth. You have been lying and distorting the truth since your first post in this latest exchange when you claimed that no reason was given and I immediately pointed you to your Swedish talk page where the reasons were given and which you read after your block. As I said before, nothing good will come of further discussions here. I request that you don't post on my talk page again, nor contact me in any other way on or off-wikipedia.Sjö (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Debate advice and suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPSM (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a liar is making a very aggressive statement. If you do so in a bar, don't be surprised if you get a beer bottle upside the head. If you call someone a liar in person or in print, you'd better be able to prove your contention (as @ssaki points out). Either way, don't expect any useful dialogue to ensue after that point.


 * As a native speaker of American English, I would consider it offensive to be called a liar whether it was true or not. You also need to be careful when accusing someone of lying that you don't get into a situation where you are guilty of slander or libel. Even though you consider someone a "proven" liar, the courts may disagree. Laws in your area may differ. ssaki


 * Everyone lies, whether it's a little white lie or a big whopper.


 * You wouldn't label someone a liar unless they lie habitually.


 * Calling someone a liar, then, is not making a factual statement about some fib they told last week, but rather is making a judgment about their character, which is why the word carries such a strong connotation and why most native speakers would take offense if you called them a liar. Scott Mitchell RPSM (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can think of no better verb to describe your blatant and willful misrepresentation of facts than "lying". You would do well to remember that this isn't the Australian Parliament. This is wikipedia and it has it own set of rules, among them rules about etiquette which you yourself do not follow. You are an experienced editor, and should know better. Sjö (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I said I had not been given grounds for my block on Swedish Wikipedia. What I meant was reasons that meant something to me, things I recognized had occurred and agreed with, Saying one thing and meaning another is part of normal human behaviour, so much so that it has been given a name subtext or, in Swedish, Norwegian etc. undertext. I never called anyone names, as you appear to have understood: information has a way of being distorted as it moves away from the source. I would never say that you were lying, it wouldn't help anyone to do so. RPSM (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What you posted had nothing to do with subtext. This post on Jimbo Wales' user talk page is an attempt to solicit help using misleading information and includes the threat of "going outside of Wikipedia". You have made other similar posts, effectively accusing the Swedish administrators Grillo and Tegel of abusing administrator rights and accusing the other involved editors of being accomplices (including myself). That is not using subtext, that is trying to convince other editors to intervene on your behalf by making statements that are contrary to fact. Sjö (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
 * Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are 4,170,224 other articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. RPSM (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Sjö (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For your information (re:Shechita article)
Here [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271 Should animals be stunned before slaughter? Joe Regenstein. Secular Religion] is one source where Joe Regenstein mentions a secular religion among opponents of religious slaughter.

''"One has to assume that these people have a political agenda and it comes through time and time again in Europe," says Dr Joe Regenstein, an animal slaughter expert at Cornell University in the USA, who is preparing a report for the Dutch Jewish community to challenge the slaughter bill.

"They are going in there with what I'd call a scientific enlightened secular religion that says stunning must be better than unstunned slaughter."''

The reason Regenstein says this, is because there is no scientific proof, and that therefore holding to a view without a logical framework to support it is religion and not science (if I have understood this right). Just for your information as you erased my edits on the Shechita article because of POV (later corrected to "unsourced") RPSM (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Personal talk pages are not the place do debate articles. I'll copy this to Talk:Shechita. Please discuss there. Sjö (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have replied to your post on my talk page. Regards RPSM (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Communication
You sent me a bunch of stuff including a way to e-mail you directly. But I don't know how to access that now. I don't have much to say now, but it might come in useful. Kind regards. RPSM (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't sent you my private e-mail address, but you can send me e-mails using the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox to the left. I would much prefer that you post on this talk page, and I want to inform you that I might publish any e-mails sent to me if I think it is relevant to the discussions here. Sjö (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

April 1
Maybe we should get this page protected for the day. What do you think? Frosted Δ 14  13:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw a protection request, so I hope protection is coming soon. This is madness.Sjö (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently the request wasn't properly done, so I've made a new request. Sjö (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Charlie M. Wood
Hello Sjö. I am just letting you know that I deleted Charlie M. Wood, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Non English versions of the Simpsons
The 'Non English versions of the Simpsons' page includes fictitious information- the Irish section. The information includes citations to a website which is completely unrelated, as it concerns the Simpsons in the Middle East. Additionally, a reference to an accountant character is in very poor taste as it links to a Wikipedia article on the murder of Jamie Bulger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.151.184 (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I have removed the prod tag from White pixelization, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Warenford (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with White pixelization. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t &bull; c &raquo;  21:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake when I edited an old version of the article. I'll be more careful in the future.Sjö (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD and project tags
Hello Sjö! A hint when AfDing articles, such as White pixelization recently, is to check at the same time if they are added to any projects with tags on their talk pages. If they are, they will appear in lists that are used by many projects. Not all projects are active, but with relevant project tagging, there is a fair chance that additional participants with general interest in these projects will take part in the discussion. In the case of this article, I added it to WikiProject Sweden and WikiProject Journalism, since it seems most relevant. Best regards, Tomas e (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. Sjö (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indiana
What I'm doing is not disruptive editing, but an attempt to add information that might be helpful to those visiting a state that is very close to my heart. I think your comments are unfair. I have the right as anyone else to edit as long as I'm not adding untrue or biased information. What I added is neither of these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.39.88 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't try to tell me you don't understand that your edits are disruptive after three different people have told you so and have reverted your edits. Go troll somewhere else.Sjö (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am learning how to edit information. My last information was correctly added to the page. I may be new at this but I am neither trolling nor trying to be disruptive. I appreciate constructive criticism, but I shouldn't get in trouble for learning how to do this. -Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.39.88 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, go on editing there, I won't interfere. I still think it's detrimental to the article Indiana to list only two cities of the maybe a hundred small cities, and your edit listing Middlesbury as an Awesome smaller city was absolutely disruptive. Sjö (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That was part of the learning process. I corrected that. There are many smaller cities and I may add more later. I just added some important sports history about Larry Bird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.39.88 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please remember not to bite the newcomers
I noticed the message you recently left to Abdishakur Shakra. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it.

The first message a new editor should receive is a Welcome notice; revert warnings are not adequate as the only message when the user's talk page is empty. You can use the template, or activate Twinkle at Preferences->gadgets to access the list of pre-populated  welcome templates tailored for problematic editors, that are much less bite-y than the raw templates. Thanks! Diego Moya (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess it all comes down to what you consider "common mistakes". Replacing an entire article or inserting obscenities is not, in my opinion, and I think I will continue to add warning messages to new users who do that. Sjö (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Charles Gordon
Hello. I was redirecting Charles Gordon to Charles George Gordon because so far, he's been the most famous person with that name and then moving the contents of the disambiguation page to Charles Gordon (disambiguation). May I ask why you object to this?C'est la vie 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloysiusZimmerfloss (talk • contribs)
 * While you were writing here, I was editing your talk page. Because you are not supposed to move articles by copy and paste. Sjö (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Question
Just in case; I wanted to make sure you were aware that I had replied to your question  Sb101 (talk|contribs) 17:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Re:You 'thank' preferences: I'm glad to hear you successfully got it sorted out. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 20:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

brothel
What is my mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.10.2 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to ask? You add a link comparing Ukraine to a brothel. That is rude, to put it mildly.Sjö (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get it. I just wanted to help - many people use brothel as a synonym of Ukraine :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.10.2 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC) :::You are a troll as evidenced by your edits and racist article feedback, and I will treat you as a troll. Sjö (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very unfair to call one a racist or troll just by unjustified allegations. Please do not revert my edits immediately, before doing so, write on my usertalk page or at least read my justification of an edit. Thank you 188.252.10.2 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be more specific - saying that Ukraine is 'brothel' is 'colloqiualism', however, in Tits the wikipedia has a disambiguation page that also considers this word in vulgar meaning - as breast. Since it is a common opinion, and the ongoing revolt even make this stereotype more vivid. Thanks, 188.252.10.2 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read FAITH and while referring to the pages please do not use cliches, templates etc. Thank you, 85.202.44.245 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

109.74.151.149
We came into an edit conflict on User talk:109.74.151.149. I was just about to say that I had reverted their edit again, and you gave them a last warning at the same time. What shall we do? George8211 conversations / new message 12:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to me there's no talking sense to 149. If he/she continues I think revert, block and ignore is the best policy. Sjö (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And now 149 is blocked for a year as a proxy. Sjö (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Problem solved. George8211 conversations / new message 12:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Monocryl‎
Hi, the external link you removed contained unique properties and distinct characteristics of poliglecaprone sutures over other sutures. This may be helpful for making a choice of suture. Appreciate if you revert changes done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijith.sagar (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Exploration of Mercury
Dear Sjö, I am contacting you due to a misunderstanding about the Exploration of Mercury page. The Odin isn't a joke edit, or vandalism, or trolling. I would know that it is real because it is a product of a micronation called the Air Kingdom, which I am President of (that should explain my username). The only reason people think it's fake is because it hasn't been released to the public yet (which I'm trying to do using Wikipedia). Please leave a message on my talk page to reply to this message. Thanks!

-PresidentCooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresidentCooper (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever it is, it's not something to be taken seriously. Please don't add it again. I notice that both Leor klier and myself have warned you not to, as it is not fit for Wikipedia, for whatever reason you add it.Sjö (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

SIM Metal
Hi Sjo

I am new to wikipedia editing rules so need your help. And agree I probably went a bit overboard in the edits to SIMS metal

Some background: I live in Redwood City, probably four miles away from SIM Metal. Got aware of them a month+ ago when due to a fire in their facility, people in the Redwood City and neighboring cities were instructed to stay home (Pollution was very bad - impossible to go outside... )... I did some research and found out there were multiple fires in their facilities - and these have been recurring... and claims of corruption in their Europe operation... I then edited the history section in wikipedia and mentioned this in the summary section. Somebody (possibly who works for them ? DMM260 or Mable24)took out many of those changes...Last week there was a fire again in the same location, and the redwood city mayor issued a "fix operations or shutdown" order to them. I went to check Wikipedia entry when I found out that any negative comments been removed from the summary section... and that when I got overzealous in cutting out...

How would you suggest handling, so the entry is objective and mentioned both the positive potential of recycling as well as the dangerious pollution and health risks that can easily occur if the company is negligent ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.255.234 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, regarding this diff there were two big problems with it. First of all, there was no source at all for the new information. We take verifiability seriously, which means that anything that might be controversial must be supported by a reliable source, for instance a respectable newspaper. (See Verifiability.) Secondly, your edit removed sourced information that to me seemed like it belonged in the article. My advice to you is to put the information about "put on notice" in the History section (without removing anything), and source it properly. If you don't know how to enter a source (or reference, as they are often called) you can look at the other sources in the History section or read more at Help:Referencing for beginners. If your edits are still removed, start a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Sims Metal Management) and ask why your edits are removed. Sjö (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)