User talk:Sjö/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Thank You

Thank you for looking out for the pages. Sorry, I work in the hotel industry, so I can't get chance to finish something at the time, so I'll rather put the information into WORD and finish it later and upload it then.

Thanks, Jonathan Burger

Welcome!

Hello, Sjö, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sjö, thanks for your reversion! --Aleenf1 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{refimprove}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:56 14 August 2008 (GMT).

Typo redirect "Cold fission"

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on "Cold fission", by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because "Cold fission" is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting "Cold fission", please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

What have I vandalized here?! 196.40.22.9 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits from your IP were pointless edits that deleted relevant information or did nothing to impove the articles [1] [2] [3] [4]. There have also been some earlier edits that were considered vandalism by other users. If your IP is shared or dynamic, it might not be you personally who did those edits. If that's the case, please disregard the warning.Sjö (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My Apologies and My Thanks

I am still a bit new here and there is so much to read and learn.

I didn’t mark the one deletion a minor edit, did I? I did explain it fully in the edit summary; I wasn’t trying to hide anything.

Also it was my understanding that minor edits did not change the content of the article. My minor edits only addressed the order of details in the article.

I do hope my meaning is clear, I most certainly did not mean to do any untowardly.

Oh Boy.

SacredSpermWhale (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing preferences

Maybe you use Firefox. I don't but I have now read that it may automatically fill in the "Old password" field, so when you submit the form, it thinks you want to change your password to an empty string. If this happens then clear the "Old password" field before saving preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Revert

And Joker wins the race again! =p. no problem mate. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Prod tags at Vipe

Hi Sjö, regarding this, anyone, including the article creator, is allowed to remove prod tags from articles. The removal of the tag means the article's deletion is contested and the prod tag can't be reinstated. I've taken this article to Articles for Deletion here instead. Somno (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I hadn't got the difference between the db and prod tags on the English Wikipedia. Sorry!Sjö (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry San

Doctor Incarnate6 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I very well apolagise for the confusion from page the diabeties, this mistakey, happen again it will not sorry sorry san.

SRY

i wanted to see the page DYK if its editable if copy and pasted!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.232.234 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Please read WP:HAT#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous as an example of improper use of hatnotes. Those "Pelham" articles are each disambiguated by (YEAR film) or by (novel). They are, therefore, not ambiguous and should *not* have hatnotes. Any ambiguous titles Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, for instance, should be redirecting to the disambiguation page anyway making these hatnotes unnecessary across the board. If you find any ambiguous titles redirecting to a disambiguated one, you should redirect them to the disambiguation page. 24.149.47.30 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Chapstick lesbian

Your vandalism of Chapstick lesbian has been reverted. Please do not remove links to external sources of information. They are needed for eventual improvement of the article. Deepmath (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I make you understand that articles that don't exist are not and can never be "sources of information"? Sjö (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is no excuse for wholesale vandalism of the article. Discuss your concerns politely on the talk page. Deepmath (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done that. You have so far not answered my questions or given any valid argument for the inclusion of "empty" links. And let me point out that deleting useless links and adding an "original research" tag while leaving the bulk of the article intact would hardly be considered "wholesale vandalism" by any outside observer.Sjö (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are deleting links and vandalizing the article in order to stifle a Swedish worldwide political discussion. That is not acceptable here, Sjösjuk. Deepmath (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

As I see it, I follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please explain why you think that duplicate links and links that lead to nowhere are important to the article. And please be civil, calling me names isn't.Sjö (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

K2 POV

This article has had a consensus for a long time there is also a footnote about the location so why the UNDUE WEIGHT to Pakistani mountains? Forzacry65 (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article history I can't concieve how anyone can say that there has been consensus for a long time, and I really don't understand what you mean by "UNDUE WEIGHT to Pakistani mountains". If you want to cut the "administered", fine, but the article should mention the fact that it is in Kashmir, which is a disputed area. Anyway, I'm taking a few hours off from editing that and related articles, may I suggest that you do the same?Sjö (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of User:Deepmath

Why was this page deleted without following proper Wikipedia process and discussion for deletion? Deepmath (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You will probably get a better answer from the person who actually deleted it. Pages that are nowhere near Wikipedia standards are often deleted without lengthy discussion ("speedied"). I imagine that was the case here, and in my opinion a speedy deletion was appropriate. Please remember that you were informed that the content violated guidelines and that you replied that you'd better back everything up (or words to that effect).Sjö (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If I don't get an answer from him or from you, I will restore my page, as I have obtained a copy of it by e-mail. If you object, as you obviously do, you will have to state specifically what you object to. User pages are not held to the same standards as pages in the main article namespace. Deepmath (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, user pages and user talk pages are usually given more leeway. However, I have shown you the links to the relevant pages. Read them.Sjö (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued harassment of User:Deepmath

This is inappropriate and needs to stop, or I will request that you be blocked. Deepmath (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your allegations are as unfounded now as they were when you accused me of what you called "wholesale vandalism" on the (now deleted) article Chapstick Lesbian when I added an OR template and deleted "empty" links. I have pointed out to you where I think that you violate Wikipedia rules, when neccesary with references to the relevant policies etc. It would be more sensible of you to consider my advice, and others, than to make baseless accusations. Sjö (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't look hard enough for it: User:Deepmath/Chapstick lesbian. I like your language boxes, by the way. I notice that you have a near-native knowledge of English. I might understand a little Norwegian and Danish, too, if I spoke Swedish like you. Deepmath (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks later...

Hello, Sjö. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Most Holy Family Monastery

Hi, thanks for the note about that. I removed it again and I think I got all of it this time. I did mean to remove it all, but I think the reference got left in. Davidpdx (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Law article

Hi Sjö! I can see you contributed to "Law article". If you have some spare time would you like to contribute to http://www.wikilawschool.org It is a non-profit law school study guide resource for law school students. Looking forward to your help! Thanks for kind consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.202.38.234 (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A late "thank you!"

Thank you! for your answer to my question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_February_22#Insulin_secretion_in_healthy_adults_per_24_hours.
The link you gave me is very helpful. :-)
I have not looked at your answer before today, but a late ‘thank you’ is much better than none at all, so again: Thank you!
--Seren-dipper (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thank you for your report on 205.211.213.218 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, that page is only for vandalism and persistent spamming. Edit warring is a different issue. You should first try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and, if all else fails, eventually file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops— I just reported him again to AIV before I looked here. Well, it's on AIV again now in any case. He looks like he's also in league with User:Xnational somehow regarding the "Operation Together" page, and this IP started editing just as Xnational's block would have ended, so I asked if it was a sockpuppet case. We'll see if the admins smell enough stink on this guy this time. --Closeapple (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin thinks this IP may be used by multiple editors, but put a 1-month semiprotect on WWIV so maybe he'll at least learn he's lost this battle and go back under his rock for a while. --Closeapple (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that the IP is Xnacional. Xnacional edits more in movie articles than 205.211.213.218 does, but all of the IP's interests seem to be Xnacional's (even that Never say Never Again isn't a real Bond movie). The edits, edit comments and lack of response on the user talk page are also similar.Sjö (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Coulrophobia‎

Not only do I not want to revert, but your idea will save us a lot of time pruning the list. Well done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For saving us all a lot of time pruning the popular culture section of Coulrophobia‎, I present to you this snazzy Barnstar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My first barnstar! Thank you very much!Sjö (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi there, I see you reverting alot of stuff atm. Please remember that if you are reverting vandalism you MUST place a warning to the user on their talk page. This is so we can keep track of repeat offenders.

Thanks - Happysailor 18:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but I think that I won't do that very often. Part of the reason is the English Wikipedia policy that a vandal can remove warnings from his or her talk page, which effectively makes warnings useless as a way to keep track of what he or she as been up to earler.Sjö (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't as 1) Huggle (which alot of vandal fighters use) can still detect warnings even if they're removed from the talk page. and 2) They are still in the history of the talk page for anyone to see. Nothing can be totally removed from Wikipedia without an administrator.

Also, it's actually a rule of the rollback feature that you MUST provide the user with a warning/explanation of the rollback/revert, and continual failure to do so can result in an administrator removing your rollback user rights. - Happysailor 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Iv'e failed to find anything about a mandatory warning message or explanation on Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Could you tell me where that information is?Sjö (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from the page you just linked:

Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used.

- Happysailor 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That part only refers to reverts where an explanation is expected, such as the fourth and fifth bullet point in "When to use rollback". Please also see the first paragraph in the same section and the last paragraph in the intro, which show that an explanation isn't necessary or expected when reverting obvious vandalism.Sjö (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tax Talk

I have started a new section in Tax Talk, I would welcome your views on how to improve this section.Paul Hield (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sofi Fuhrman

Thanks for the review, Sjo, but you seem to have checked the wrong hook :) The original hook was already rejected, it's the ALT1 hook (at the bottom of the thread) that needs verification. My apologies for not making that clear in my original post, any chance you could check the alt hook? Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help, at the article Santorum (sexual neologism). Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.Sjö (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions about self-harm on the reference desk

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Responding to requests for advice about self harm - best practice?. Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 22:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Coulrophobia

I should have taken the time to read. Thanks for the fix. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help.Sjö (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

re autogyro edit

Yup, much better - and with only the addition of two letters and the substitution of another two. Bravo! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Sjö (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"A blog isn't a WP:RS"

Hi Sjö,
More reading for me to do.  :-D
I know that applies to articles, but what of lists? Take your time in answering, and I'll come back here to see it; as I posted my response to your post in my talk page. Cheers,  :-)  Civic Cat (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, more cursory glance about the list meta articles. The rule does apply to lists, however I wonder if it isn't as much a RS source issue, as a credibility and falsifiability issue. With most articles, RSs are needed as it's generally difficult to find out by oneself, particularly in things like politics, religion, and BLPs. However, the link I provided is quite falsifiable. Now my list might be a case of listcruft, though again, it touches on things notable, and it might get less, if you will, "listcrufty" in time.Civic Cat (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason Wikipedians want reliable secondary sources is that they show the notability of the article topic. If the the topic has been covered in newspapers, books, academic articles it's more likely to be notable than if it isn't mentioned. Sjö (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

and newspapers, books, academic articles generally don't make lists. Regardless how my list does, I will give the guidelines a decent read.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5