User talk:Idunius

Welcome

Hello, Idunius! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Med tanke på det du lyfter upp på WP:KAW

Jag kommer, som jag skrivit, inte redigera på wikipedia mer under december, i januari kommer jag försöka göra något för att ge tillbaka till Höstblomma, Ankara, Perolinka och andra inkl. dig, som fått lägga ner tid på mig och mitt beteende på slutet. Min begäran om blockering var bra, och det jag testade gjorde jag av två anledningar - för att se om det var sant att nybörjare blir dåligt bemötta (vilket jag inte tycker de blir) och för att se om jag kunde redigera inom andra ämnen utan att fastna. Jag tänker ge tillbaka den tid ni lagt ner, men kan aldrig göra tillräckligt för att få bort den olust jag kan ha väckt hos er. Att du lyfte min blockering kommer alltså inte göra någon skillnad för mig, och att jag hållit mig borta från det jag fastnade för (SFFR, klottersanering, datorspelsartiklarna) tack vare blockeringen har gjort mig gott. Det känns som du tror att jag hittat på att jag mådde dåligt, det gjorde jag inte, oavsett vad du tycker och tror så är jag tacksam för din hjälp för utan den hade det inte gått. Jag begärde inte blockering av mig själv för att kunna använda de andra kontona sedan, kontona hade jag i sådana fall kunnat skapa utan att vara blockerad. Min mening var inte att driva med Wikipedia, om det var det kunde jag fortsatt med mina tre konton utan att berätta vad jag kommit fram till. Vet inte om man kan göra som jag föreslår, men för min del så om du känner att du vid vidare kontakt kommer bryta mot etikettreglerna så varsågod att göra det - du är i övrigt en oerhört tålmodig och trevlig person och ingen kan lasta dig för om du "i stridens hetta" väljer att använda ett grövre språkbruk än vanligt. Det var inte mening att göra någon vare sig arg, ledsen eller upprörd och om jag har orsakat det får jag sedan självklart stå till svars för det. Om det enda jag kan göra är att ge dig tillåtelse att vara otrevlig mot mig så gör jag det. Skriver här då du i och med att du lyfte blockeringen gjorde det omöjligt för mig att redigera på ens min egen diskussionssida (de andras blockering låser IPen i någon dag vilket inte spelar någon roll för mig men gör att jag får svara dig här istället). Jag är också väl medveten om att det kan ta ett tag innan du läser här, men ville meddela mig så snart jag kunde ändå. Eftersom jag inte alls är upprörd på dig så önskar jag dig en God Jul och Gott Nytt År, har förståelse om den inte besvaras med samma ord. GameOn (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jag hoppas att du kan förstå GameOn, att man kan bli både förvirrad och frustrerad av ditt beteende. Undersökningar och marionettkonton tänker jag inte ens ge mig in på att kommentera, det får andra göra. Det som gör mig arg är i första hand två saker: 1. Jag upplever att du lurade mig att, mot mångas uttalade mening, blockera dig igen på din förfrågan, efter att du vid flera tillfällen underlåtit att respektera den vita månad du tidigare begärt. Du visade helt enkelt ingen respekt när du valde att gå runt den blockering du övertalat mig att mot bättre vetande bevilja. Jag blev faktiskt ledesen av det, för jag tycker inte att jag någonsin visat brist på respekt mot dig. 2. Vi har klottersanerat så mycket ihop du och jag, att jag faktiskt trodde att du tyckte att jag beter mig ok mot nybörjare. Ärligt brukar jag göra mitt bästa, precis som de allra flesta andra av "kollegorna" på swp. Att du då vill "testa" oss/mig på det här sättet känns kränkande. Jag har försökt hjälpa alla tre konton du skapade, och att du lät mig göra bort mig så gör faktiskt ont. Jag blir jätteledsen när jag läser bilddialogen hos HRG, t.ex., tyckte du att jag förtjänade det? Jag vill ändå önska dig en God Jul och ett Gott Nytt År, och hoppas att nästa år ska bli mindre komplicerat och utan sårande påhitt. Jag hoppas också att jag kan fortsätta på SÄ utan att betrakta nybörjare med större misstänksamhet än tidigare. --Idunius (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Rough translation:I hope you understand GameOn, that your behaviour makes me both bewildered and frustrated. I won't comment on sockpuppets and "research", I'll leave that to others, but I will explain what makes me angry. Basically it boils down to two matters: First of all it feels like you tricked me into blocking you against my better judgement since you already had chosen to circumvene the block you had requested from another admin. I went out on a limb for you, and you paid me back by disrespecting me. This made me very sad, because I honestly don't think I've ever showed you anything but respect. Secondly, we have fought vandalism together for a long time you and I, and I honestly thought that you had had ample opportunity to see for yourself how I treat newcomers. I always try my best to welcome new contributors, just like, in my experience, all other serious contributors. Your decision to put my, and other contributors, behaviour to the test is offensive. When I read the dialogue about image-files between me and "HRG" e.g, it really makes me very sad that you felt that it was ok to lead me on like that. Do you really think I deserved it? Anyway, I still want to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happpy New Year, and I hope next year can be less complicated, and without any hurtful experiments. I also hope that I'll be able to go on working with newcomers, without being suspicious in a way I never used to be.) --Idunius (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Jag är ledsen att jag sårat dig och andra, det var verkligen inte meningen. Tanken med undersökningen var att se om det fanns fog för de anklagelser mot oss som grupp som dykt upp under hösten om att vi inte tar emot nya på ett bra sätt, det var aldrig tanken att vissa enskilda skulle drabbas. Jag visste redan innan att du är en av dem som är allra trevligast i ditt bemötande av andra, något som också lyftes fram när du blev vald till administratör. Jag ser inte att du gjort bort dig, du har istället varit en av dem som visat att nybörjare tas emot på ett bra sätt - och det ska du vara stolt över tycker jag. Du har alltid behandlat mig med respekt, och som jag skrev på min diskussionssida på svwp så tror jag inte att jag kommer få tillbaka den från dem jag sårat med min undersökning och det är beklagligt men också något jag får leva med. Att du var snäll och hjälpte ex. HRG med bilder var i sig inte ett test för att se vad du kunde (självklart visste jag att du kan både lägga in bilder och hjälpa användare med detta) utan det var ren slump att du svarade HRG. Hade jag anat att reaktionerna skulle bli dem det blivit hade jag inte gjort denna undersökning. Jag förstår att du tycker att jag lurade dig att ge mig en blockering, men jag är tacksam för att du hjälpte mig med att ge mig en, skälen till den finns fortfarande kvar och jag ska därför fortsatt hålla mig från klotterkampen, SFFR och datorspelsartiklarna. Och för den delen inte dra igång ett liknande projekt för företag även om jag tror att det skulle underlätta om de artiklar som finns blev bättre och de som saknar relevans försvinner så slipper vi diskussioner i stilen "Det mindre företaget B finns, varför får inte mitt företag vara med?" utan när jag är tillbaka hemma efter jul och nyårshelgerna ska jag försöka ge tillbaka den tid ni andra fått lägga ner på mig. Tack så mycket för dina ord om God Jul och Gott Nytt År, och jag hoppas verkligen att du får en jättefin jul. Att såra dig var absolut ingen bra julklapp, och jag hoppas att du inte kommer titta snett på nybörjare på SÄ i framtiden, dels är ju undersökningen nu gjord och sedan så är nog alla införstådda med det idiotiska i att göra en till, även om flera som kommenterat verkar anse att det var bra så är inte det tillräckligt många för att någon ska göra samma sak igen. GameOn (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Just wanted to say kudos on the Crown Princess Mary picture. 10000000% better than the old one.--Nwinther (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (She is a beautiful lady, it's a shame not to let it show =) )--Idunius (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jane Grey birth place

Hey, Idunius! Thanks for detailing that Lady Jane Grey birth date thing according to the de Lisle ref. I've for the moment adapted the sentence in the article anyway, because it was somewhat awkward. Having not Lisle's book myself, I haven't yet included that ref, but in case you don't want to do it yourself, I think I could do that later as you detailed the page numbers. Anyway, thanks! Buchraeumer (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks! Yeah, I wasn't too satisfied with that sentence either, you did a good job! I've added the ref and I also added the book to the bibliography. /--Idunius (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Idunius, it takes more than one editor to engage in edit warring. The WP:ONUS for obtaining consensus lies with the person who wants to add disputed material. You clearly haven't obtained consensus, and re-adding the material while trying to unilaterally declare the discussion "over" is not really consistent with the rules of editing Wikipedia. I think a self-revert is in order here - simply leave the disputed material off the page and we can seek additional input though an RfC if needed. Nblund ^talk 16:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not declared the discussion over. I have continued the discussion in the right place - the article's talk page since the issue is no longer original research, but content. I left messages to make that clear so that the discussion could continue should there be need. As to edit warring I tried to end that by introducing a new text, taking in account all views that had come to light in the discussion. I have not tried to reenter the old text, I have now entered a new version based on the opinions there were agreement on. The text was removed at once, without prior discussion. That is the edit I objected to, since it renewed warring instead of discussion. I would appreciate it if, instead of leaving incorrect and unwarranted "warnings" you could try to contribute to the article and the discussion should you feel inclined. I would remind you of the basic principle: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. This is the fundamental principle. I have done my best to follow it. Could you at least give it a try, you have yet to even try to abide by this principle, the passage is simply removed. Now, a new text is there, it can be improved and altered. Why not try? The fundamental guideline is there so we can improve the encyclopedia. Nobody has as yet tried to apply this guideline, so I gave it a try. So do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. Idunius (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You are declaring the discussion about original research "over" without consensus - I'm the only un-involved editor who has even weighed in at this point and I think it is clearly OR. As for your new edit: you're trying to resolve a content dispute by repeatedly inserting your preferred version - that's called edit warring, and it definitely doesn't address my concerns. I haven't removed any content because of bias.

I'm going to go ahead and request additional input from outside editors on the original research noticeboard, and I will be continuing the discussion there. If we can't get to a resolution, we'll try an RfC. Nblund ^talk 16:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Un-involved? Repeatedly inserting? I have tried a whole new version to be able to move the discussion forward. You keep writing warnings instead of trying to reach a solution. The discussion was in no way closed, it continued on the talk-page. I would appreciate additional input. Idunius (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning your efforts. Could be that the other cases there (like Hinduism) have inspired you just out of interest. But thing is that those also were added under questionable ground (they can't be used to justify what you are adding). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Idunius, why do you not use the underlying reasons motivating you here to document stuff (concerning another article) and ask another user to asses them? If you are Interested in Islam or any other subjects, might it be considered as pro or anti... doesn't matter. There is more than one article on Wikipedia where you can document anything you want. Probably in another situation (be it pro or anti or any other sides) your proposals will be accepted. Maybe the source you found is appropriate in another article. Have you thought of that? Because for this pointless edit war you could be blocked; while you could possibly recycle for another article. Just that Islam as a religion is grounded on patriarchy, it just stops here in this particular case, the rest is a word war. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You know, I am not particularly interested in Islam or polyandry or any other related topic. The underlying motivation here is I once stumbled across an edit made, with sources, that was removed without explanation. Since I care deeply about Wikipedia, free knowledge and respect for sources, I watched the page. Since then, I have seen how this particular issue has been subject to editing without comments and with arguments that are not based on what the sources show. So I had a proper look at the sources Gammalflamma had added, and tried to understand the context. The arguments presented against the first text were not based on what the sources actually say, but on cultural bias ("Islam is patriarchal and hence would not accept..." or misinterpretation of concepts "Married must mean divorced" or on some strange kind of idea that anybody editing an article concerning Islam must have some kind of agenda. And the discussion has kept debating the same point over and over, without regarding new points of view and new sources. It's been complete stonewalling. So this is why I care. I care because I respect Wp as a project, because I care about respect for sources and because I believe in academic honesty. You know, I do contribute to other articles. I think I've made close to 25 000 edits. I have never been in an edit war. I don't particularly care about tossing rules and guidelines around, so I'm not even gonna go into that discussion - stonewalling, bad faith editing.... I have seen no effort at all, none whatsoever, from you or Nblund, to try to reach a compromise, to try to add and improve. There is no "pointless edit war" on my part. I have undone three edits (from the same user who removed sources without discussion)- this year, not in a day! And never without discussion or in bad faith. I have tried to come up with a compromise based on the discussion, so we could move forwards. So the interesting question here is what your underlying reasons are for not trying to add or improve, for not trying to give constructive suggestions to reach a compromise and for not wanting to contribute to a way to reach consensus? Idunius (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

But see, I am not questioning your intentions, everyone has a position about anything. I don't adhere to a casting system, where people are tagged as pro or anti this or that. I am sincerely trying to see what you are seeing. But the sentence really isn't explicit for me. My English isn't as strong as yours, so maybe I should disengage then. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Idunius, you said you have only undone three edits, but did you not previously make edits to this same material using an IP address? Edits like this one date back much further and seem to deal with the same material. Nblund ^talk 22:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I came close to giving you a sharp answer, but then I saw that you have tried to contribute constructively to a compromise which could give us a chance to reach consensus, instead of throwing allegations around. So I thank you for that and hope that might close the issue. I just left a question for you concerning a couple of words in a sentence that I believe you may have left in by mistake while polishing the language. Since we should avoid changing each other's edits, the situation being what it is, I hope you will read this and make the alteration yourself. And as I said, thanks. Idunius (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)