Talk:Mikael Ljungman

Conviction

Whether his conviction is under appeal or not, it is an undisputed and widely reported (at least within the Swedish press where his conviction occured) fact that Mikael Ljungman has been convicted of tax fraud. Given the resume like claims favored certain editors of this article, and the history of false pasts being created in press releases and even SEC filings by other Gizmondo executives in the first incarnation of the company, I think it is important not to let Wikipedia be abused to provide a squeaky clean profile for this man. So unless the appeal gets to court and is successful, it is important that it stays here to provide some balance to an otherwise self-promotional article. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious that certain editor Fugu Alienking, deliberately choose words, word settings and the way to structure his work is to color the article in a negative way. Even if conviction is mentioned in that sense in a published article it will not effect the legal meaning of the word. The correct wording in legal terms should be accused and indicted for.. Wikipedia is abused by Fugu Alienking and even in this talk he sets "false pasts being created in the press releases and even SEC fillings" in a Wiki article and a last attempt to "black wash" Ljungman though that obviously not aims at Ljungman. -- Needlepinch (talk), 12:23 (EST) 31 May 2008

Concerning the conviction: Ljungman is not appealing an indictment or an accusation. He's appealing a judgment handed down by a judge in court - a conviction. I also made some other edits and partial reversals:

I shortened the patent paragraph while keeping the relevant content. It was a direct quote from the patent's abstract, including that abstract's strange grammar. The aim was to make the same content both clearer and shorter.

I removed the Media Power section; neither the section nor its sources mentioned Ljungman. Media Power is beyond the scope of this article. Is Ljungman involved with any of Media Power's operations beside the Gizmondo relaunch? Unless we have a source on that, I see no need to discuss the company in any detail.

I rewrote the sentence "Carl Freer and Mikael Ljungman was cleared from any Media suspicions regarding their work for Gizmondo Europe Ltd.", omitting Carl Freer. Firstly, this article isn't about Carl Freer, and whether Carl Freer was cleared from suspicions or not should be discussed in his own article. Secondly, one of the sources given didn't mention Ljungman at all, and it didn't mention Freer's "clearance from media suspicion", either. Thirdly, the other source mentions that the liquidators' representative had questions to Ljungman and was satisfied by the results, but doesn't mention Freer in this context. Finally, we don't even report the media suspicions in the first place.

I removed the background information on Gizmondo and Tiger Telematics. Neither was at that point directly related to Ljungman; the source doesn't mention him. Again, the information is beyond the scope of this article.

I renamed the "early life" section; it dealt with his life from university graduation to present, not quite "early". Huon (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Needlepinch has reverted your valuable contributions to this article. I have removed all the non-relevant text again. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found another article which deals with the indictment before the case came to trial in great depth. I have added it as a reference, as it gives far more details about the charges than the brief post-trial notes in the existing references. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article gives reference to extensively cover the indictment before the case came to trial, so it should stay. Needlepinch (talk), 9:59 AM 2 June 2008 (EST)

The referred 3P preform article need to be read in two sections accordingly. It seems that we once again stick fighting about the essence of articles. If the article is read properly it says that the receiver of the Invoices sent by 3P preform rendered a VAT input that could be deduct-able. Needlepinch (talk), 12:51 (EST) 3 June 2008

I have doubts when it comes to this edit version of Ljungmans conviction. Why use "serious" aren't every tax offense serious? Trying to understand how this article is formed I have read more of the, mainly 3 parties, contributions to this article, talks and discussion pages. It is my humble opinion that every attempt to augment an argument or translation is a violation to Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. It is my firm belief, in order to achieve the goals of "Presumption in favor of privacy" that we should explain in a less intrusive way the offenses presented in the article.--Riverside blue (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The word serious was a direct quote from the reference. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is it referring to? The level of offense? I just read a translation and I got the impression it was an argument?--Riverside blue (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Power Inc.

The contents of this section, specifically the listing of four divisions of the company, did not match with what is on the company website. The references only mentioned one of those divisions so I thought it safest to remove this until a better version can be produced, if the consensus is that it is relevant to the bio to go into details about this company's activities. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit to only reading the first reference properly before removing the section, it appears the section was lifted verbatim from the second reference. I suggest rewording it to not fall foul of any copyright laws, removing the first reference which doesn't contain anything that isn't covered by the second, and explaining on this talk page why a press release should be accepted as a Reliable source over and above the company's own website, so that others noticing the discrepancy don't jump to the same conclusion I have. I still think its inclusion in the bio, especially as a separate section, is overly promotional for an encyclopedic article, but if sufficient explanation is given here, I will not remove it again. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see it was reverted without attention to my comments above. I have removed the superfluous reference, as it just repeats part of the press release that the other reference reproduces in full. I would still like to see my concerns addressed on this talk page about the reliability of the information in the press release where it contradicts information on the company's own website. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a repetition to the prerelease so it stays in the Fugu Alienking edited form. Neddelepinch (talk) 9:54, 2 June 2008 (EST)

I have looked at the Media Power website recently, and Mikael Ljungman is no longer listed along with the senior management or directors of the company. Since he is no longer with the company, and the company itself is non-notable, I'm not sure that this article is justified (not that it ever was IMHO). --Fugu Alienking (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Freer

Carl Freer has his own article, which is the appropriate place for information about him. There is no need to put blanket statements about him being cleared from wrongdoing that is otherwise not mentioned in this article. The statement that the liquidator accepted Mikael Ljungman's explanations about the transactions between his company and Gizmondo clears Freer from any perceived wrongdoing regarding the transactions listed in this article already. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fugu Alienking. The article doesn't mention any accusations against Carl Freer, whether by the liquidators or by the media. The "source" Needlepinch adds time and again is a press release by the liquidators. It does not mention any suspicions whatsoever, and it also does not mention that Carl Freer is cleared of them. But more to the point, it also does not mention Ljungman at all. This material would only be relevant to Ljungman if we had sources actually naming the media suspicions against Freer and explicitly linking Ljungman to suspicions against Freer. Huon (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The changed reference mentions: except for Carl Freer, who is now, due to his assistance and conduct, being excluded from the investigation.” ”Carl Freer has cooperated fully, and we do wish him every success in his new venture. His contribution to the investigation has not only saved us a considerable amount of time and cost, but added a great deal of financial value to the investigation. He did not go to the media and because of that, he got a lot of criticism, which was underserved. We regret that now, but he did keep his word and came through. Hence we took the unprecedented step of selling him back the assets, which happened in the end of 2007.” --It doesn't mentioned Ljungman in particular but it has bearing on the article about him, especially in the paragraph describing the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe Ltd. It also gives the same extended coverage Fugu Alienking uses to cover this angle and any other angle. Please also read Fugu Alienking earlier contribution regarding the transactions between the Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe Ltd, especially his use of wordings. Carl Freer is also Ljungmans partner and its a startup to the relaunch of Gizmondo. Needlepinch (talk) 10:17 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)

I agree that the new reference says many nice things about Carl Freer. But Freer has his own article, and that's where stuff on him belongs. This article is about Ljungman, and unless there's a conenction between Ljungman and Freer's deals with the liquidators (a connection not currently mentioned in the article or in the sources), Freer's deals should not be part of the Ljungman article. Ljungman's partnership with Freer concerning the relaunch is mentioned, the transactions between Ljungman's now bankrupt company and Gizmondo Europe are mentioned (in more detail than is called for, imho), and that seems to me to be all of Ljungman's involvement in the Gizmondo Europe bankruptcy. Or did I miss something? Huon (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no connection between Ljungman and Gizmondo Europe Ltd bankruptcy. I think this thread has grown from the wording where the reader can be set in thought there was a wrongdoing in the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe. In that sentence both Ljungman and Freer is mentioned in two different articles and the clearance of them both gives the article a proper balance . The article also briefly describes the media suspicion and the angle Fugu Alienking seems to adopt. The reference also links together with the buy out of the IP rights of the Gizmondo unit and Ljungmans involvement in the relaunch. Needlepinch (talk) 10:46 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)

So we agree that there is no connection between Ljungman and the bankruptcy except a pre-bankruptcy business deal that was explained to the liquidators' satisfaction. Then which part of the article does in your opinion give rise to the idea that "there was wrongdoing in the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe"? Wrongdoing by whom? And why isn't that sufficiently balanced by us reporting that the liquidators were satisfied with Ljungman's explanation? Why mention Freer's dealings with the liquidators at all?

Concerning Ljungman's involvement in the relaunch, the source doesn't mention him. How can it then link Ljungman to anything?

I've rewritten the Media Power, Gizmondo and Legal troubles sections of the article in order to make clearer what happened when, and who was or wasn't involved. Now they should be in the correct chronological order, it should be clear who was and who wasn't involved in what kind of wrongdoing (and in what other activities). I also removed the excessive details of that single transaction, whose importance was not explained. It's still mentioned in one of the realtid.se sources. Huon (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The wrongdoing questions raised after the Fugu Alienking contribution and how the transactions between 3P preform and Gizmondo was laid out. The SEC report was the start and the article about Ljungman and Freer ends the story by saying there was no strange or wrongdoing involved. Even if it not spelled out, it could be read so. My confusion regarding this is how we can OK to present a persons wrong doing but not his good doing. It's not sufficient balanced only buy saying there was no wrongdoing by Ljungman when it was a two party transaction and that second party now is involved in new business with Ljungman. A source doesn't have to mention a party directly, its enough if it's a reference to a specific part where both of them was mentioned. :The relaunch is mentioned in the first section of article about Ljungman so I presumed fact there. The article about IP rights links Freer as his business partner and that he or they have the IP rights, without theese rights they couldn't relaunch the Gizmondo unit. :I don't agree in total how the mix of Gizmondo, 3P and Media Power is laid out. Media Power is used for relaunching the Gizmondo and I think Media Power have the same value as the rest of the companies do its connects to present occupation, the relaunch and the partnership with Freer. There also some misassumptions in your text. Needlepinch (talk) 2:44 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)

Of course we should provide a balanced view. We currently don't report any wrongdoing by Freer (not even accusations of wrongdoing), and we report about Ljungman only what was published by reliable sources.

The IP rights article is indeed about Freer. It does not mention Ljungman as his partner, or that Ljungman also owns a stake in the rights (it even suggests otherwise). The Media Power website mentions Ljungman as one of the founders, but an independent source would be better. For example, the media (except Sandberg) seem to mention only Freer when they report about Media Power (more than 500 Google hits for "Media Power" and "Carl Freer", compared to two for "Media Power" and Ljungman - Wikipedia and Sandberg). The impression I get is that the partnership isn't equal, but we don't have any sources clearly stating that, either. I'll reword that sentence a little more.

I chose the section name because Ljungman's 3P Preform-based legal troubles apparently are unrelated to Gizmondo; for example, they predate the Gizmondo Europe bankruptcy by over a year, and they even predate the launch of the Gizmondo. On the other hand, 3P PreForm is the start of Ljungman's relation to Gizmondo and should be mentioned as such, and when Gizmondo Europe went bankrupt, the liquidators questioned the old business connections, again something we should mention (including the liquidators' satisfaction, of course). We could make a new section for Media Power, but it would be a pretty short section unless we add stuff not related to Ljungman, something we shouldn't do.

Would you mind pointing out my misassumptions? Huon (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've split the 3P PreForm section out from the Gizmondo section, to avoid any hint of confusion about Gizmondo's involvement in the legal issues. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought rewriting the sentence on the Freer-Ljungman cooperation seems useless without better sources. Huon (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Needlepinch, you are reading too much into my contributions. I found a connection with Gizmondo that predated his current involvement, and thought that if the article warrants a separate section for Gizmondo, then that section should cover the previous involvement. The fact that the reference for the previous involvement was an SEC filing about an insider transaction involving his company seems to have made you defensive, and you are now expanding the article to provide cover stories for third parties to compensate. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems, finally, that we agree on something Fugu Alienking. The 3P preform section should be split from Gizmondo in order to avoid confusion.

I can't se there is a competition between Freer and Ljungman, and you could always ask for more when it comes to different references. There are though a value describing Ljungman giving Media Power a section. He is founder according to the company website and there are buzzing news about the company.

I hope I'm not reading you to black Fugu Alienking. I'm a strong believer in balance.Needlepinch (talk) 6:36 PM, 2 June 2008 (EST)

Use of Primary Sources

Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources, especially in Biographies of Living Persons. In this case, we have an individual with a history involving crimes of dishonesty (a conviction for tax fraud and bookkeeping errors involving his companies), so primary sources need to be treated with special caution. For this reason, I have removed the Education and Work section, which was based entirely on a self created LinkedIn profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugu Alienking (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, this obviously shows you have a hidden agenda regarding Ljungman. This should also bee a subject under Delete or Keep discussions when that was alive. According to Wiki, its also ok to use non primary source if that source its the only source. Its also, by sources you added, confirmed by other sources that Ljungman ins an expert in the areas you can find in Linkedln. Needlepinch (talk

Also, the section on inventions, the sole source is a patent application. Until that application has been properly reviewed and approved by the USPTO, it is a primary source. It could well be rejected by the USPTO based on prior art, meaning that Ljungman may not in fact be the inventor after all. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, inventor in its strict meaning could first be proven if the application is not rejected. Needlepinch (talk)

If you agree, why did you add the claim back, again referencing the patent application, which judging by comments made by the examiner so far about prior art and failure to state an inventive step in any of the claims, has little chance of success. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia discourages the use of non primary sources, especially in Biographies of Living Persons, a self published material could be used WP:SELFPUB. The Linkedin part of the Article should be reinstated.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources establish notability as well as hopefully some fact checking of the primary source. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia encourage "reliable secondary" sources after primary sources. Linkedin is not a secondary source, it should be labeled as a self published source. This is a Biographies of Living Persons and self published material WP:SELFPUB could or should be in the article. Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid.--Riverside blue (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Current reversals

1. There is no indication that Ljungman is still employed by or involved with Media Power. Their website no longer lists him among the biographies or board of directors. Unless there's some source stating that he is still connected with Media Power, I'd take the removal of his bio on their website as a strong sign of a severed relationship.

There are several company home pages that not mentioned all parties involved. No one of the the known founders is mentioned on the company web site. At Linkedin we can can se that both Ljungman and his partner Carl Freer holds their positions in the company. There are no signs of severed relationship, there are more signs of a evolving company. There are no signs out there that implicate a change of Ljungmans Bio and business activity. The connection to Media Power stays.--Needlepinch (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, LinkedIn is not a reliable reference. It is self published material, in this case, self-published by a convicted fraudster. What's more, blog posts by Hans Sandberg quoting Media Power Group's PR guy pretending to speak for the Gizmondo receivers are not reliable references either. After stripping away all the content that relies on unreliable references and the irrelevant content that is left, there is nothing left in this article except the fact that this man has been convicted of tax fraud. I don't think Wikipedia needs an article on every tax fraudster out there, so I am nominating this article for deletion. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Whether he works there or not, the company's partnerships with universities seem completely unrelated to Ljungman. Unless there's a connection to him, I don't see why we should include the company's activities in Ljungman's article.

If Ljungman was one of the founders and also at it seems still be active in the company, there is natural connection to the company evolvements and notable actions. If you look at other WIKI profiles there are a lot of company actions as well. It also reflects on Ljungman as a businessman. This also balance the article. The section should stay.--Needlepinch (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I restored the Gizmondo section which contained background information on Ljungman's now bankrupt company 3P Preform. That section's content (including the source) were referred to in other parts of the article. Huon (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needlepinch (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see there has been another round of reversals, citing things others have said in the deletion discussion as reasons for deleting content. Please leave judgment of which references were being referred to to the author of those comments. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I found Needlepinch's latest edits almost amusing. Of course he's not whitewashing Ljungman, he's just selectively removing anything negative about him. While the reliability of realtid.se may be debatable (I'd consider it generally reliable since it's a newspaper with editorial oversight), it's still better than blog entries, and Aftonbladet is clearly among the most reliable sources ever mentioning Ljungman (ok, that may not mean much, but still). And why, precisely, is the blog reliable enough to serve as a source for Ljungman's business ventures, but not for his arrest?

Indeed we have sources connecting Ljungman to Media Power; I'll re-add something to that effect. But I'd ask Needlepinch to abstain from blanket removals of sourced content. That might be considered vandalism. Huon (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Its amazing that we in this part have some sort of consensus. One party "black wash" that might be considered vandalism and I'm trying to shade that black with some "whitewash". My so called "whitewash" is based on you earlier comments regarding the sources reliability. You trying to decide what sources is good enough to prove your point instead of using all kind of sources out there that could provide a bigger picture. lets try to use the sources we have at the moment and find some kind of consensus.--Needlepinch (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit you removed content sourced to Aftonbladet, to realtid.se, and to Sandberg's blog, all in one grand sweep. Do you say those sources are unreliable? If so, there are no reliable sources which mention Ljungman. If not, please explain why you removed sourced content.

Concerning the "blackwash": I have yet to see Fugu Alienking adding anything which is unsourced. If the newspapers focus on Ljungman's legal troubles and other rather negative aspects, that's too bad for Ljungman, but reporting such content in Wikipedia is not a violation of WP:BLP, much less vandalism. Shading that black with some "whitewash" is fine and well if there are sources. If there aren't, then just removing sourced content and adding unsourced content in its stead is not the way to go. You're currently also close to violating the 3-revert rule.

In my opinion, among the current sources Aftonbladet and the Uppsala Nya Tidning are the most reliable, closely followed by realtid.se. Blogs in general aren't considered reliable sources, but Sandberg's article (the "giz" source) is mostly a translation of his realtid.se article, so I don't have any problems with that. I don't know what to make of the patent applications either way. The Tiger Telematics business report is in my opinion unnecessary, doesn't mention Ljungman, and I'm not sure what to make of its reliability. The Aftonbladet article basically reports the same details; we should use that instead. The sources that were used for Media Power's generosity towards universities were press releases and thus rather low on the reliability scale; since they don't mention Ljungman and we don't have anything linking Ljungman to Media Power's generosity, they shouldn't be included in the article. Huon (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Power Inc The source state founder. Reading earlier conversations on Discussion and Talk pages there was an initial unanimity. This WP:BLP article should include Ljungman as a founder of Media Power Inc and also Media Power Inc as current occupation.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which source? We're all looking for it, but unable to find anything even linking Ljungman to Media Power let alone as a founder. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know who or whom you refer or refers to when you write "We're all". I believe several of the contributor have read it, and it was my impression that you earlier was OK with the old source but you changed viewpoint after reviewed a newer release of Media Powwer Incs web site. I read it on Needlepinch (talk) talk page; Media Power Inc, Bios and News, and could also find it when i Google it. According to me it is now established he was a founder of the company, and meanwhile he was in the old bio page, at least one of the million dollar donations was finalized. --Riverside blue (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was the Stubs removed?--Riverside blue (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is longer and more detailed than a stub. Huon (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question? Reading the article about Ljungman and Freer it says they are working together with Gizmondo and Blowfishworks. Trying to access the Blowfishworks site its tagged with Get Fugu. Do anybody know if this is the same Get Fugu you can find at the Media Power Incs website, and at GetFugu website?--Riverside blue (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Power Inc (again)

If there are reliable references that link Ljungman to this company, as founder or otherwise, then please provide them. Otherwise continued insertion of this section is in violation of WP:BLP. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We have already, and you especially that there is a connection to the company. That is why we refer Ljungman as founder and not elaborate if he still is with the company or not. You refer references as BOGUS and that together with your other continued insertion of this section is in violation of WP:BLP and it could also be considered vandalism.--Needlepinch (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have used the ambiguous term Bogus. The URL was badly formed, and even after fixing the obvious problem, the article it was supposed to point to did not exist. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On re-reading the sources we have, I couldn't find a connection between Ljungman and Media Power. There was mention of Ljungman on Media Power's website, but that's gone. Unless there's an explicit source for the connection, it seems to be too minor a detail of his biography to mention in his article. I did add what the sources say about his role in the Gizmondo relaunch, but Media Power is not mentioned there. Huon (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the "founder" source to the article. But I'm still unconvinced that it's appropriate to report on Media Power's activities unless we can provide a source linking them to Ljungman. For comparison, it would be just as inappropriate to report on criminal activities by Ljungman's business partners unless those activities were linked to Ljungman by a reliable source. Huon (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Under this section we may summarize everything where we reached consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Any consensus here involving single purpose accounts and potential sockpuppets is worthless. Even if independant editors are involved, circumstances change and new facts come to light, so editors should not be afraid to be bold and ignore anything written here. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The new intro seems to be OK.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Education & Work

The self published material seems to be OK.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Patent Applications

It seems we reached fully consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Power Inc

It seems we have reached Consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that by now we have an article on Media Power itself, we should shorten this paragraph to contain only information relevant to Ljungman. The activities of Media Power which cannot be shown to be connected to Ljungman should be removed. Huon (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It should stay, Ljungman is one of the founders to the company and the company is notable. As a rader or information seeker it gives valuable information. We have minimized company info in the article why it should stay.--69.120.82.161 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gizmondo

As patent application, it seems we have reached fully consensus.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

3P PreForm Marketing and Research

It seems that we have found a reasonable writing.--Riverside blue (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK--Needlepinch (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the writing of this part is rather ugly and needs some serious copyediting. The grammar is horrible and seems to be the result of a machine translation from the Swedish sources. I'd have to guess what a "pre partly owned company" is supposed to be. I also still disagree with the term "bookkeeping error" as a label for what is described by the sources as systematic crime. Huon (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no other label for it even if you want to find something that sounds more criminal. From the article you can't decide what systematic refers to. To the article with more depth to Ljungman it also says nine bookkeeping errors why I change it to nine instead of eight to ten. i would be great if you could do something with the grammar.--69.120.82.161 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppets

With regards to Media Power, Mikael Ljungman, and Carl Freer, please note that User:Riverside blue, User:Truthmaker1, and User:Needlepinch appear to be either the same editor, or working in concert. Additionally, all three are single-purpose accounts as they have only contributed to these articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, a big problem is solved, my split personality!! If some editors have, in general, the same viewpoint they must be forced into one entity or remain silent. Should I also do the conclusion that other contributors, regarding to the above subjects and Gizmondo, do also match your analyze? or is this a last desperate way to silence some of us.--Needlepinch (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Connection to IT-Factory

In the Danish version of ComputerWorld [1] it says that he was doing business with the missing Stein Bagger involved in a case about fraud for more than 500 million Danish kroner. Does anyone have some english source for this? Kinamand (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but I suggest to let this play out a bit so the scale of Ljungman's involvement is clear, as a lot of the information in the articles that are around now seems to be based on speculation rather than fact (Ljungman is currently in court appealing the charges mentioned in this article, but at least one newspaper article I read claimed he was in court on new charges). --Fugu Alienking (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

An article quoting Ljungman as admitting that he lent his car and credit card to the fugitive has now been printed, so there is definitely a notable connection there. I'll add only what is a direct quote from Ljungman for now, until prosecutors make an official statement about his involvement. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no articles about any new charges. The only yhing out there is the appeal. There seems to different claims out there but there is no official statements other from the article where Ljungman says he lend the car and that Ljungmans companies have done business with the Danish company. There are also some contradictions in several articles.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

Having read through the recently added references, I see that there has been further doubt cast on the claims made in Mikael Ljungman's LinkedIn profile. So I have reverted the latest change restoring this content to the earlier version by Fugu Alienking. If you wish to add it back in, I suggest you include the quote from an ex-customer of Ljungman's to counter-balance --124.13.220.194 (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the quote and it says nothing that contradict the LinkedIn profile. Its an anonymous source talking about Ljungmans expertise in mobile solutions.--Needlepinch (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Be more specific why we should remove the self published material. I cant find anywhere that the self published material should be wrong. Followed the published material it seems that Ljungmans connections grows. He have also several recommendations. To use the IT factory story to say the material doesn't work for me. The material should stay.--Needlepinch (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources are bad, per WP:SELFPUB. Per our Biographies of Living Persons guideline, claims need to be sourced to reliable, third-party sources. If you need advice on this, feel free to ask. LinkedIn would count as self-published in this case. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. LinkedIn are a self published material y the subject him self, Ljungman. The Biography artcicle is not soley based on this self published material why it should stay. This material also subjctify Ljungman from other Ljungmans.--Needlepinch (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring to restore this, as consensus is against you. It should not be restored unless an agreement is reached here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Needlepinch, you are selectively quoting Wikipedia policy here. Let me selectively quote another part of policy that might be relevant: In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. The fact is, the LinkedIn material is contentious, I have raised the point before that it is unverifiable, and now we have an anonymous CEO quoted in the mainstream press calling an aspect of what is written there into question. The fact that it is self-published by the article's subject does not guarantee that it is a valid source for Wikipedia. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How can it be a consensus against me when there is no substance in the reason to remove this part? Anonymous statements can hardly be a reason to remove self published material? The statements doesn't even aim at any part in the LinkedIn material, it aims at the "Expert on mobile solutions". This anonymous statement says that this part is some type of sponge without elaborations. There is also more than one reason to use the LinkedIn material except self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons, its also diversify and substantiate the biographic individual. As it seems there is more reason to keep it than remove it, and it seems that restoring is the only possible way to have this discussion.--Needlepinch (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly restoring disputed material is not appropriate. You need to wait until there is some form of resolution here, including (if need be) seeking opinions from the wider community. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the disputed then? -Self published material in general, -LinkedIn as a self published source in general?, -Some part of the information in Ljungmans LinkedIn material? -If self published material as LinkedIn is OK in it self, its not OK if there is media speculation or if someone may be to any interest in some case, witnesses included? --Needlepinch (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Media sources also use Ljungmans LinkedIn page as a source.--Needlepinch (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Appeal Result

I have tried to present a balanced view of the recent appeal result, labelling the overturning of serious fraud offences a partial victory for Ljungman, but it seems that Needlepinch would rather that everyone forget that Ljungman was ever charged with the overturned offences and others which according to the references have not been overturned. As Needlepinch would have it, Ljungman has been given 10 months in prison for "accounting", but that is clearly absurd. I would welcome contributions from unconnected third parties at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugu Alienking (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Needles to say, a overruled lower court conviction by a higher court means that the lower court conviction lack legal force, it doesn't exist in legal terms. You cant have more than one conviction so to speak. Its childish to say that the argument above, based on legal facts only, is used for the reader to forget. If you read all the articles, and also try at least for some minutes to understand the legal terms you can read out this; the initial prosecution contained two tax fraud offenses, 9 accounting offenses. The lower court convicted Ljungman for those crimes. Ljungman appealed. The two tax fraud offenses was dismissed, (to use further in this sentence is clearly wrong), there was clearly only two tax frauds offenses according to the refs, the 9 other accounting offenses seems to be unchanged. If you feel that 10 months for accounting is absurd, that should cause carefulness and also trigger some more investigation. I have ordered the judgment. I look forward to other contributions. The quote in the ref: "Först ska vi ta ställning om det finns förutsättningar att driva målet vidare till Högsta domstolen" doesnt aim at the reason to appeal, the reason to appeal is "Utredningen stödjer helt enkelt inte att han har gjort de brott som åklagaren påstår" the reason to appeal must come from there is something wrong in the conviction.--Needlepinch (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you use that reference to back up, is the fact that Ljungman and his lawyer may consider a further appeal. So the text that you quote should be the text that says that, not an unattributed quote that alone says something very different. For the other material, I am basing my interpretation of events on the following quote from the referenced article: Åtalet för grovt skattebrott ogillas enligt domen och därför fick Ljungman sitt straff nedsatt till 10 månaders fängelse. Brotten som han nu dömdes för var bokföringsbrott och försvårande av skattekontroll. If you have a better reference, please explain. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is absurd to eradicate any mention of the overturned conviction. It has been covered by the newaspapers, Ljungman was convicted, that conviction was (partially) overturned. What's wrong with reporting these verifiable facts? Besides, 10 months for "accounting" is absurd because accounting is no crime, not even in Sweden, and we can be pretty sure that Ljungman was not convicted for "accounting". If Needlepinch objects to the translation "fraud", he should provide one that makes clear what exactly Ljungman did. Huon (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

bokföringsbrott och försvårande av skattekontroll, bokforingsbrott = accounting offense, (its not a fraud), försvårande av skattekontroll = impeded tax supervision. Accounting offense could be criminal by negligence or by intent. Accounting offense could be criminal if you don't save or safe keep your books and records or the electronic part of the book keeping, which seems to be the case here if you read the refs, "Att den digitala bokföring som skett inte återfunnits". When you cant access the electronic book keeping, and without to much work (print and collect) and in reasonable (short) time you can also, besides accounting, be convicted for impeded tax supervision, (you cant without to much work (print and collect) and in reasonable (short) time check if the income tax returned filed are correct. It seems that the lawyer share Fugu Alienking and others wiev that it is absurd sentence to get 10 month for accounting. I haven't read the judgment yet so i don't now all the details yet.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Åtalet för grovt skattebrott ogillas enligt domen och därför fick Ljungman sitt straff nedsatt till 10 månaders fängelse. Brotten som han nu dömdes för var bokföringsbrott och försvårande av skattekontroll. - The prosecution was dismissed on the two tax offenses (skattebrott may be interpreted as one crime only, but there was two) why Ljungman got his sentence reduced to 10 months. Its close to the bio section we have today.--Needlepinch (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Freer partnership

There's currently a revert war going on concerning whether Ljungman and Carl Freer are partners or not. The only reliable source we have strongly suggests they are, with Freer calling Ljungman his "Co-Pilot". At that time Freer knew that Ljungman had been convicted of financial offences and was appealing the verdict. Now that the appeal was lost, Truthmaker1 seems to think the partnership was dissolved. We have no sources for such a dissolution, and while Ljungman is banned from running a business in Sweden, I don't see why he should no longer be a partner in Freer's American business ventures. Huon (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that Truthmaker1 is a single-purpose account, as with Needlepinch. Their only purpose appears to be an attempt to "clean" any negative information from the articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthmaker1 does have a valid point concerning the broken Media Power link, though. That entire company seems to have vanished. Do we have any reliable sources for its fate? Huon (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply disagreeing with you Huon is NOT mean anyone is single purpose...quite the contrary...Ljungman is currently in jail and physically unable to contribute or be a part of ANY partnership or business. Logically your assertion is irrevelant..perhaps you are the single purpose account.. Truthmaker.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaker1 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthmaker, you should read the WP:SPA page on what constitutes a single-purpose account. You, only editing two closely related articles, obviously qualify. I, not so much. But being a single-purpose account is not itself a violation of policies. Removing sourced content, on the other hand, can be considered vandalism. And since Ljungman's prison term probably doesn't cut him off from the internet, he may still be able to contribute, and even if he wasn't, he may still be a partner without currently contributing any work. For example, he can't lose his status as "co-founder" of Media Power, Inc., and if he is co-owner, he didn't lose that, either. So a reliable source indicating that he is no longer related to Freer's projects would be necessary. Huon (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a repeat of what happened when Stefan Eriksson was imprisoned. Truthmaker1 comes in and cleanses Freer's record of any association with the convict. See previous edits. Interestingly, some of the suspicious transactions that Stefan and Carl engaged in with respect to Gizmondo also involved Ljungman, though that was well before his relationship with Freer became clear. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We still don't have any source for the dissolution of the partnership, and we have a reliable source of Freer embracing that partnerwhip although Ljungman had already been convicted. Even if the partnership were by now dissolved, we should keep mention of Freer's (and Ljungman's) important ex-partners. We also have a source explicitly linking Ljungman to GetFugu, so I don't see any grounds for removal of that link. Huon (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)