User talk:Needlepinch

Mikael Ljungman

Description Mikel Ljungman is a businessman and an expert on mobile communications. Expert was removed by Huon and Fugu Alienking. The word Expert separates someone who works with this professionally from a layman.

Education & Work Linkedin is professional network site. Ljungman have a public profile. Ljungmans has per today 2008-09-07, 34 connections (34 other professionals linked to his profile). If 34 other connections are connected to his profile this substantiate the usage of a weak source together with other sources.

Patent applications It seems that we have come to a consensus there.

Media Power Inc Earlier sources stated Founder and involvement in Media Power Inc, http://www.themediapowergroup.com/Elements/MediaPower--%20old.swf. Even if the Media Power Inc web page per today 2008-09-07 doesn't mention Ljungman, its hard to argue about the founder status. Media Power Inc has also grant million of dollars to Universities internationally, in the same field Ljungman works, Augmented Reality, the company is therefore in it self is Notable and why the progress of it should reflect somewhere in Ljungmans article.

Gizmondo It seems that we have come to a consensus there.

3P preForm Marketing and Research The earlier part was ok by me. The new part is not correct and direct misleading. This present writing, presented by Huon and Fugu Alienking says Ljungman was accused of about a dozen cases of fraud and two serious tax fraud offenses regarding 3P PreForm and eight other companies. The also refer to one article mainly target another parties. Reading one reference http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200512/22/20051222120813_Realtid483/20051222120813_Realtid483.dbp.asp, you cant find anything that says "dozen cases of fraud", its says 9 or 10 bookkeeping errors. (talk) and (talk) has extended the amounts and also deliberately changed bookkeeping errors to "fraud". Huon and Fugu Alienking changed the earlier part "Ljungman was accused of using 3P PreForm to over charge a pre partly owned company rendering an input deductable VAT of SEK 1.9 million (USD 295K) in the pre-owned company". This writing is exactly what you can fin in one of the referred articles. http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200512/22/20051222120813_Realtid483/20051222120813_Realtid483.dbp.asp.

Conclusion Its obvious that the latest voting session about Ljungmans notability and the arguments about unreliable sources had one purpose. That purpose was to delete sections in the article in order to remove every positive angle of Ljungman. Same sources that argued as non reliable are still used. The Notability argumentation was a childish diversion tour, he seems notable enough for Huon and Fugu Alienking.

I still have doubts about Ljungman's notability. To answer your points here:

Not everybody working professionally in mobile communication is an "expert". Anyway, if there's a secondary source calling Ljungman an expert, feel free to add it.
LinkedIn is user-submitted content, comparable in reliability to Facebook or even MySpace (that is, very low). The links to his profile don't help. While I don't feel too strongly either way if you want to use it to source Ljungman's education, it should not be used for his more grandiose claims of current positions - "Visionary Entrepreneur" was from that site, wasn't it? Given Ljungman's history of creating lots of companies - one of the fraud sources spoke of at least nine! - I'd assume that any of the titles he lists on LinkedIn are in effect self-given: Create a company, become your own CEO, get a grandiose title.
Media Power: While I saw them listing Ljungman on their website, that page is gone. There is no source connecting Ljungman to Media Power. And while I thus know that some connection existed, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verrifiability. Thus, unless we can source that he was or is connected to Media Power, we should not add it.
3P PreForm: While I don't read Swedish, Google translates the Aftonbladet article given by Fugu Alienking as: "It is about a dozen cases of fraud and two serious tax offences, "says kammaråklagare Leif Görts at the Economic Crimes Unit East title. It's not as if Fugu Alienking were making things up.

Finally, you should have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Name-calling won't either help resolve the dispute or garner you any sympathies. Huon (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert, if you ad the Patents and the Source i should prefer expert above the resent writing.

Linkedin is a source, and even with the history of Ljungmans earlier companies it provides a reasonable background. Visionary Entrepreneur should have been changed by me.

There is an old source still out there. And it was from that source we found out that he was a founder.

That translation is not correct, especially if you try to translate the rest of the story. It is something Fugu Alienking has created.

Yes I'm aware of the name calling and I'm apologize for that. Sorry to say when the article is made up as it is know i believe there is second agenda here.--Needlepinch (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know a source for a Ljungman-Media Power connection, please give it. I'm not aware of any such source except the now-defunct Media Power website. Concerning the translation, that wasn't Fugu, that was Google. To make sure that it's not some blatant error, I checked that "brott" (as in "bokföringsbrott") is indeed not "error", but "crime" or "offence". "Fraud" seems a reasonable translation for "bokföringsbrott". Unless you say that Fugu either fakes Aftonbladet articles or manipulates Google's translator and the online dictionary I used as backup, I can't understand how Fugu is supposed to have "created" that citation. Huon (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your effort(talk) and I have, despite my harsh language, look at you as a good mediator. Unfortunately I felt that you became blind and a follower. Ljungman is maybe not a lamb. The the crimes he was convicted for and have appealed happened between 2002 and 2003. Today we are in the late 2008. Even if Ljungman is guilty or not some years has passed. According to criminal law he is not guilty before the final judgment. It may be so that Ljungman is not guilty it may also be so that Ljungman may have evolved. I'm not the judge of that or neither are you or any else.

The old source you can find here: http://www.themediapowergroup.com/Elements/MediaPower--%20old.swf. I'm not very pleased with the situation that old sources seems to be forgotten and therefore become obsolete.

Bokforingsbrott its not even close to Fraud: WIKI: "In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them" Fraud is not a reasonable error it is misleading. With bokforingsbrott you can find, as you will find in the article, bookkeeping errors. It also equal important to the wording tax fraud, according to me, to understand the fraud. It's a difference in the wording and in its nature if its like the earlier or the wording Fugu Alienking trying to fore upon us. Please translate the whole article before argue for a standpoint.

I'm trying to find the source again telling the birthday of Ljungman and the source of Hedvig Eleonora Church. Its in that article we can find his birthday and Ostermalm (Hedvig Eleonora Church (Swedish: Hedvig Eleonora kyrka) is a church in central Stockholm, Sweden in the east parish of Östermalm - WIKI source)--Needlepinch (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ljungman's legal troubles are long past, but still they're the major part of the information found about him in reliable sources. According to criminal law he's not guilty before he is convicted - and he is. I'm no jurist, but I doubt his appeal makes it less appropriate to call him guilty unless the verdict is overturned by a higher court. Not that the article calls him guilty, mind you. It only reports what he was accused of, with a source, and that he was convicted of tax fraud, again with a source.

Concerning "crime" or "error", I did let Google translate the entire article. The translation reads rather funny at times, but I didn't see anything indicating that they didn't mean "crime". Realtid.se gives similar citations of the prosecutor: Leif Görts describing it as the Ljungman "systematically engaged in financial crime in recent years (02-04). [...]"[1] That doesn't sound like an accident either, but like Ljungman deliberately deceiving the tax authorities in order to damage them.

Concerning the old Media Power website I have to apologize; I had failed to find any link thereto from their new site and had assumed they had taken the old version down completely. We can use that as a source to name Ljungman a Media Power founder, if you prefer that wording. But the problem remains: Should Media Power one day decide to take that old page down, the only source linking Ljungman to them will be gone. And it still does not link him to any of the company's activities: He's a founder, but not CEO or, as far as we know, in any way related to the decisions to support universities.

On a completely unrelated note, while comparing the Media Power websites, I noticed that the newer one mentions "James Hunt" as "Chief Executive Advisor". Is that the same James Hunt who used to work for the liquidators of Tiger Telematics and who was so satisfied by all Freer and Ljungman said? And now, a few months later, he works for their company? Strange coincidence if it is the same person, but not fit for the article unless some reliable source reports it. Huon (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about the conviction (even if the that law-terms not apply on a not guilty). It's an important part of the article and Ljungman need to take his own responsibility for his actions. I want to find a wording that is closer to the truth and the essence of sources. He has a judgement on tax offenses, and the tax offenses (it's not fraud it's an offense, http;//spellic.com/eng/skattebrott/) according to the sources have the wording i have presented. Actually there is 2 different tax offenses, one is internal invoicing as i have described it, the other one was a negligence to revert VAT after an unfinished contract. Lets try to find consensus on this part as well.

The term bokforingsbrott is bookkeeping error. A bookkeeping error is a crime. The wording is not fraud. Its like portrait every forest or grove as rainforest.

Media Power, the only thing we want to establish is Ljungman as a founder. If that source disappear or not he still is a founder if we reach consensus. You can never remove a founder status. If a company founded by Ljungman is donating million of dollars it should be in the article. I can except, until we have other sources, that we place that latest donation under external links. The million dollar donation to Georgia Tech was definitely something that happened under the time Ljungman was in the Bios section. Se old link again.

I don't know if it is the same James Hunt. Even if so I believe there could be more to that story than a strange coincidence. Maybe they know more about Ljungman and Freer than what we do? I there was anything wrong i don't believe that Freer would be able to buy the assets of Gizmondo. The litigation possibilities of such action would be to big if they wasn't completely acquitted. Do also notice that the Gizmondo was only mentioned by the prosecutor in the case against Ljungman.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i also believe we could accept the Linkedin as complementary source to the articles. There are no contradictions in the source. According to my understanding and description of Linkedin, if you have 34 connections it means that there are 34 other networker that is professionally connected to Ljungman. Is not at all similar to the friend network you have in Facebook as an example.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be an expert someone would have to be recognized as such by their peers in the art, and to support such a claim, I'd want to see a secondary source that quotes someone unconnected with Ljungman (not his business partner) and respected in the industry calling him that. With regards to the birthdate and other personal details about Ljungman and his family, I removed those in the understanding that they are inappropriate for biographies of living people, certainly if they do not come from secondary sources, unless they are part of what someone is notable for. The reason is the possibility of identity fraud (there's that word again). And continuing on that subject, in English, we would call the crime you are trying to describe as bookkeeping errors fraud. Perhaps tax fraud if it purely involved tax, but fraud is a general umbrella term for a wide range of dishonesty offences. Bookkeeping errors does not even sound like a crime at all to a native English speaker, I suspect you know that, and that is why you wish the wording to be changed. LinkedIn networks are no different than any other social networking site, the number of links you have has absolutely no bearing on the reliability of the information in your profile. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word expert is widely used when you have a profession in the subject. Working with mobile communications doesn’t necessary mean that you are an expert. Ljungman is working with mobile communications, he has several patent applications also related to mobile communications and he is also founder of a mobile communication company. This may qualify him as an expert and that was the reason I choose that wording. If you don’t think all of the above combined is enough it’s OK by me. It seems important for why I will not change the wording.--Needlepinch (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s gracious of you to protect Ljungman from identity theft. Maybe you should remove the same information from Bill Gates article? If you ask me, I would rather be Gates than Ljungman. I think you can ad that information again.--Needlepinch (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bookkeeping error verse Fraud; In pure English there is a big difference between Fraud and bookkeeping error. Fraud is not a proper legal term on the crime bookkeeping error. It’s totally of no significance if it sounds like a crime or not. We don’t need or should want to “Hollywood up” a word in order to make it sound better. I can’t follow your thinking here.--Needlepinch (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between Linkedin and other networks. It should be in there, when it serves the bigger picture.--Needlepinch (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the identity fraud, I doubt Fugu Alienking was concerned that someone might use the info we publish in order to impersonate Ljungman, but rather that Ljungman may have published incorrect information. As a prominent example, I recently read that designer Karl Lagerfeld makes himself five years younger than he is.

Concerning the "bookkeeping error": I still fail to see how "brott" is translated as anything but "crime" (admittedly Sandberg does translate "bokföringsbrott" as "bookkeeping error", but all the dictionaries I checked do it differently). Especially, the Google translator does use the translation "fraud". The problem I have with "bookkeeping error" is that, unless I'm mistaken, it's not a proper legal term at all; it sounds like an accident while all sources point to a deliberate crime. We could translate it as "bookkeeping crime", but I'm sure that's not the correct English term, either. I just checked Enron, a more famous example of creative accounting, and there "fraud" is used to describe similar practices.

Finally, concerning LinkedIn, I don't see how it's different from other networking sites. For all we know, Ljungman's 34 connections might be Stefan Eriksson and his Uppsala Mafia - they're not an indication of reliability. It's not as if LinkedIn staff check the information submitted, or do they? Huon (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can speculate how much we want but still it is a source where we can find published material.

Bookkeeping errors was correct translated by Sandberg. Crime is a general term I a certain act are illegal. If you read Fraud on WIKI you can see the different. Enron is special case and is not what I can se or read even close to Ljungmans case. In Ljungmans case, according to the sources, there was transactions hasn't been booked and in the Enron case there was booked transaction in order to deceive, or Fraud if you so like, the stockholders by others.

What connection do Ljungman have to Ericsson and his so called Maffia? Do you implicate that Ljungman was a part of them?--Needlepinch (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is indeed a source where we can find "published material", but self-published material. For example, you just added information to the article (that I removed as unsourced) stating that Ljungman lives in Stockholm. On LinkedIn, he's listed as "Greater New York area". That's not quite Stockholm; what is correct? And, by the way, how do you know Ljungman's date of birth? Since I'm aware of the article, that information was never sourced.

To the best of my knowledge, Ljungman was not a part of the Uppsala Mafia, though according to the UNT article he did once live in Uppsala and though several of the ex-Mafia members, including Eriksson, were in business relations with Ljungman, both before and after the Gizmondo crash. And I don't really think that organized crime uses a sotial networking site for its organization; that was just the most absurd example I could think of to show that lots of connections need not mean that the provided information is necessarily correct or that the connected person is inherently reliable. Huon (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion page and I agree with Riverside Blue that self-published material could be used in a Wiki Bio page. Should we change it to lives in New York? It was my belief after reading the sources that he was living in Stockholm. It makes sense in a way that he now lives in New York if he is active in Media Power Inc and or related companies. I read earlier that he was born in Stockholm and in Hedvig Eleonora parish. I cant find it anymore, and it seems you haven't either. It seems hard to find the facts if Ljungman did business with them or with the companies there they where involved in.--Needlepinch (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Mikael Ljungman, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Much of the material you added has already been rejected by other editors for reasons stated in the edit logs. Other parts are unsourced claims about the background of this gentleman, and modifications of references from the original newspaper article to a blog posting. Fugu Alienking (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Media Power Inc

A tag has been placed on Media Power Inc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Avnjay 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Ljungman's legal troubles

You have repeatedly removed sourced content in what looks like an attempt to whitewash Ljungman. In my opinion that borders on vandalism. So please stop; if you think that mentioning his conviction is inappropriate despite the sources, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Yours, Huon (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clean up some of the Fugu Alienking "black wash" This in not a way to whitewash Ljungman its a way to find a balance.(talk)

I had to correct the text I wrote about his conviction; I misread the source. But I came to the conclusion that there's too little reliable information about Ljungman to warrant a Wikipedia article (for example, I couldn't even find out when he was convicted); I have thus nominated the article for deletion. The deletion discussion is here. Yours, Huon (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mikael Ljungman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The profile of Ljungman went thru a process. After that process you and others start to change what several editors agreed on. --Needlepinch (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The process it went through was a discussion over whether it should be deleted. Because the user who initially nominated it for deletion changed his mind, it was kept. At no stage did people get together and decide that the article or any part of it should not be changed. This is Wikipedia, that does not happen. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are on smear campaign again. You have obviously something against Ljungman and Freer or Freers contact with Ljungman or vice versa.--Needlepinch (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mikael Ljungman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please use the Talk Page as requested by other editors Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Kuru ^talk 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Needlepinch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for this struggle is to come to a consensus. If you follow every standpoint from Huon or Fugu Alienking you can summaries the following; the use words as Notability, Uncritical sources and Weak source. The Notability factor is used in one sentence and that is to argue for a removal of the whole article. This is a misleading argument though Ljungman seems notable enough if just their voice and interpretation is heard. The Uncritical factor is used in sentence to remove other then their parts of the article, the amusing of this is, that they uses the same sources yet again if just their voice and interpretation is heard. The week source, in this case Linkedin, are in it self OK according to WIKI rules if not the whole article is based on it. If you read the public Linkedin pages about Ljungman you can find material about his occupation status. You can also read that Ljungman have at least 30 connections to his profile. This could substantiate that its not Bogus as Fugu Alienking says, (later withdrawn as many other comments).--Needlepinch (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit-warring, which you have certainly been doing; that rule applies even if you are certain that you are right. When your block expires, you may use some of the many methods for appropriate dispute resolution to try to reach an agreement on this article, but we don't repeatedly undo each other's edits.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you. I do hope this is not personal. My edits has repeatedly being undone. I don't think the meaning to reach an agreement is to repeatedly undo my edits. I do also believe there should be a deeper search in old arguments to enable a consensus and or allow one side undone and reverts.--Needlepinch (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please note that you have repeatedly defied consensus, edit warred, and demonstrated problems with article ownership and single-purpose editing on the page Mikael Ljungman. Further edits that continue this pattern may lead to a block from editing. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Ckatz, please explain where i have defied consensus? About edit warred, it seems that there are more than one part in this. You and Fugualienking and our friend in Malaysia have decided the character of Ljungman, me and some other, mainly me, have tried to lift up the parts that so easily or conveniently are left out. I believe that the true bibliographic character is best presented by giving the black and white. If you follow whats agreed in the article of Ljungman that your edits are mainly the same. There is small variables of wordings and also some additional texts that gives some kind of balance to the article. single-purpose editing doesn't aim only at one persons contribution, it also aims at several persons single minded character contribution. I think its more than clear that you together with others are determined to only contribute with one negative side of this Ljungman, and I together with some others trying to give the other side of the story. --Needlepinch (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Truthmaker1 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Ckatz^chat _spy 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]