User talk:Sjö

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave a message on this page, please click here.

Trevor Chowning Wiki[edit]

I included the links in the reference section to support the corrections and for the content I added. It's all true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAA88 (talkcontribs) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Wikipedia is not your private website or a bulletin board where you can post whatever you want. There is no reason to add controversial information about an unknown person. Sjö (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. The correct the info about the short film The Chaperone should be edited. It was not nominated for an Academy Award. It was nominated for a Student Academy Award which is mush different. It's all on imdb. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAA88 (talkcontribs) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Just go ahead and fix it. Sjö (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The sound of high heels[edit]

Hi there?

I have noted the sound of high heels and have seen many people agree with me. However, is there a Wikipedia policy that prohibits forum sources? What would be considered an acceptable source when it comes to a poll of opinions?

Thanks. 151.225.85.170 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:USERGENERATED. Reliable sources are generally something you can find something in a book, or an article in a newspaper or even on some websites (but it's hard to determine if a website is reliable enough). The page I linked to in the first sentence has lots of examples of what's a reliable source and what's not. 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Gummo Marx[edit]

Hi Sjö, please see the talk page before making any more changes to the Gummo Marx page. The suggestion that all of the information I put on the page is "fake" (made by an IP address) is not enough to justify removing everything I worked on. Please let me know if you have further ideas about this or can help verify or disprove what I put on the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained why the info is wrong on Talk:Gummo Marx. Sjö (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]

When you get a chance, please review the France edit recently added at no-go area. I reverted it once because it is the editor's unsourced opinion which is a result of WP:SYNTH. This is what happens when an article's context is ambiguous and unsourced. Thanks in advance. AtsmeConsult 23:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The text seems to be a correct description of what happened, and it certainly isn't unsourced as you claimed in your edit comment. I'm leaving it as it is. Sjö (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW - reverting one edit is hardly considered disruptive editing. Is it your intent to intimidate me which is not unlike WP:BULLYING? AtsmeConsult 07:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's rich, coming from you, considering that you recently warned two other editors to stop being "disruptive". The "disruptive" behaviour being that one of them had removed an unwarranted speedy tag and the other a prod tag, both of which is perfectly OK by Wikipedia's rules. Sjö (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should investigate further to see what provoked my comments/concerns instead of immediately passing judgment. Andy had been suggesting deletion of the article long before I ever appeared on the scene. Then he changed his position, and started contradicting his own reasons for wanting it deleted. No-go ironically became Andy's partisan WP:BATTLEGROUND, [1]. You haven't been exactly consistent, either. [2] I thought it was a little odd that you suddenly appeared and immediately took sides instead of encouraging NPOV. As for the deletion templates, I made an human mistake when I added the wrong templates. I was actively trying to get help on AfD when Nomo interfered and reverted. Nomo's presence at no-go wasn't by accident. He has been stalking my edits over another incident. I initially came here asking you for advice, but I see where you're coming from now. Too bad the article has to suffer as a result of all the confusion. Anytime an article's TP grows 3x larger than the article itself over the course of a few days, the reasons are obvious. No-go went from being an obscure incoherent little stub to a WP:COATRACK before the context for the article had been determined. And just look at that coherent list of useless references cluttering up the article - excellent MOS/layout. Good job, Sjö - and thanks for the advice. AtsmeConsult 05:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I find that extremely hard to believe. You are an experienced editor, you asked for advice about "A1" speedy and you referenced WP:PROD as a reason for your warning. In my opinion, it's clear that the above is an attempt at justification after the fact. If it isn't, the message still stands: acquaint yourself with Wikipedia rules and procedures before making any edits that could be controversial. That goes double if you intend to warn another editor for supposedly breaking the rules. Sjö (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
AGF, remember? I was having issues, [3] [4], [5]. I found the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and dubious WP:POV pushing at No-go_area quite disturbing, [6] especially considering the well sourced material I found [7] which was dismissed by you and Andy, [8]. Then you made the request [9] which I fulfilled, [10], and you processed it to fit your POV, [11] ignoring the relevant parts that define "no-go areas". There are all kinds of trip hazards when one doesn't AGF and things devolve to WP:ASPERSIONS. I'll just end this tit-for-tat by saying your warning has been noted, and remind you that it applies both ways. Happy editing. AtsmeConsult 20:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I Apologize... :'-([edit]

Yesterday I made an edit on the page about World War III, in the "Fiction" section, where I added what I thought would be another fine example of an "alternate history" mockumentary, a 2006 audio drama called "The Last Broadcast", which I recently discovered on YouTube. When I went back to the same page and section, I noticed my edit was gone. So, I checked the edit history, and the following log entry revealed the reason why:

03:20, 23 January 2015‎ Sjö (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,720 bytes) (-1,469)‎ . . (→‎Fiction: not the place to add class projects)

Yes, I DO admit that I stated that the audio play WAS (part of) a "class project", as opposed to being "professionally produced", as the other examples were, and there is no need for you to explain anything to me...I DO understand PERFECTLY. Therefore, I hereby APOLOGIZE for this, and would appreciate ANY advice on how to avoid this "issue" in the future. No hard feelings? Thank you, and take care. :-) 2602:306:C456:2380:B804:5A55:D47D:68AB (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Coercion? Contention about Taxation[edit]

First, I must apologize for any incidental rudeness or annoyance; I'm very new and casual with Wikipedia.

Second, I have had this conversation before: So, second: taxation. You don't think taxation is coercive. Indeed, for those who do not take issue with it, it is not. However, for those who do not agree with it, they are not allowed to not participate in the tax system. They are forced to by threat of jail and/or death. Is this not inherently coercive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyguy76767 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Indeed, from the definition one could say that its enforcement is coercive. However, coercion carries a negative connotation of something illegal, however taxation is generally considered a government right. (Please, also, when you post, add 4 tildes or click on the button at the bottom of the editor window that does this for you, to sign your posts, like this:) Iwilsonp (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; I've been figuring out how to use proper etiquette on here by trial and annoyance (not intending to annoy of course).

  • Yes, it certainly is a negative connotation: coercion is involuntary. Is imposition really any better? Taxation is, likewise, involuntary for those who do not wish to participate.
  • Since without taxation, government would not exist, why wouldn't it be considered a government right?
  • There are things that are illegal for which there is no rational basis, such as marijuana.
  • That taxation, and thus government, are coercive does not mean that without government there are no rules - agreed upon things - for society. Rather, it is the opposite: without government, there would be a return to sense and rules, as government contradicts sense, reason, and morality starting from its very origin - taxation.
  • From taxation follows the rest of things that don't make sense in society, since we are inculcated to believe that coercion, if it is in the form of taxation, is not coercion, but civilization. As you said yourself in your edit of my edit: "I don't think it's coercion."
  • Doublethink, epitomized in the general view of taxation, is why the world is in general ruin from corporations: corporations are legal entities of the state, after all. Shyguy76767 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Shyguy76767 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Iwilsonp here; coersion is the wrong word to use since it implies an unlawful activity. The words "imposed" and "punishable" make it clear that taxes are non-voluntary payments, but linking to coercion introduces a non-neutral point of view, something that we should avoid in Wikipedia articles. Sjö (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this how you do that?
If taxes are non-voluntary payments, and thus the law is a non-voluntary system, how is accountability possible? Unless you can withdraw participation voluntarily, how is taxation, and thus, the law, not coercive? Coercion refers to threats, which is the basis of non-voluntary participation.
Is it really possible, or even proper, to have a neutral point of view when discussing right and wrong, morality and immorality? If I asked you to hold a neutral view of our discussion, would that be possible? Could you toss aside your conceptions about The State, law, police, and just look at the logic of it? As shown by your own re-edits, the answer is No: you are biased in favor of the idea of lawful activity being viewed as moral. Yet, if activity is involuntary, how could it possibly be moral? How could coercion be construed as an inaccurate link to it? Shyguy76767 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I understand your arguments. I'll have to think about it when I have more time. Sjö (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Having thought about it a bit more, I understand that your arguments seem to be based on the idea that you are right and that which is an opinion in other people is a fact when it comes from you. Please understand that no argument can be won that way. Sjö (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How is the reasoning I provided an example of me having the idea that I am right and that which I say is fact? If the wikipage for taxation did not have imposition as part of it's definition, I could see how what you're saying would hold water if I was adding that to the definition. However, I was simply making the word (imposition) linked to what amounts to a synonym, as attested by merriam-webster, thefreedictionary, vocabulary, google, dictionary.reference.com, thesaurus, dictionary.cambridge, and macmillandictionary, since the only wikipedia page for it has to do with the printing press, which is obviously not the meaning.
Further, how is stating your opinion as fact - "I don't think it's coercion." not exactly what you are accusing me of?{{unsigned[Shyguy76767}}

List of humorous units of measurement[edit]

My browser did an edit (in scope) that I did not intend. Can't explain it. Sorry about that. Good catch. 7&6=thirteen () 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting some good edits, but I took it for vandalism. I reverted myself to your next to last edit and changed the level for the RCH heading, which I think was what you wanted to do. Hope I got it right. Sjö (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Aronthemovie[edit]

Hello Sjö. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Aronthemovie to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. -- GB fan 01:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Prathik Ponnanna[edit]

Nice photo album they have there (19 pics!), or is it an election ad? Smiley emoticons doh.gif 220 of Borg 08:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Americans[edit]

Hi I have reverted your edit along with the other IP Edits to the last stable version. Do check and revert if i missed any constructive edits. Thank You. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You restored an unsourced and very dubious text by the IP. I'll assume that it was a mistake and remove it. Sjö (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Simon Cho[edit]

Yes, there is a rule to keep defamatory content off a living person's page. The content on Simon's page is misleading and makes it look like Simon was fully responsible for his actions and that he did what he did on free will. It makes no mention of his abusive coach, nor the fact that that coach was banned from USS. Simon was forced to act by his coach and then he was forced to admit what he did. To say that he was fully responsible for this on his page is potentially libelous and is therefore against wikipedia rules regarding living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.46.75 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said before WP:BLP allows this kind of information. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed but this information is well sourced and also important enough to keep in the article since it had an impact on his career. What you "know for a fact" as you wrote at User talk:MusikAnimal can't be used on Wikipedia, unless you can support it with a reliable and independent source. Even then the incident should be mentioned. There are many articles about living persons with negative information about the article subject. That it's negative is no reason to remove it. Sjö (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
And I see that you have removed it for the last few months. By now you should have realized that consensus is for keeping it. Please stop edit warring, it can get you blocked. Sjö (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

YOTO[edit]

CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL

hey why you deleted my information YOTO. do you know It is the very famous brand in India. recently the YOTO brnad having too much talk in the market. Why are you refusing about my information?


CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL What do you mean by word YOTO? you had putted very false information even it is not containing any reference or avaidance about information. still you had put that information instead of my edits. My concern is not to doing marketing or Promotion about YOTO okey. I just tried to put correct information on wiki about youngsters hot favorite brand YOTO.


For one thing, you just don't throw out an article and replace it with a text about your own company, that's very impolite. Secondly, I'm not sure your company meets the notability requirements in WP:COMPANY. Also, Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise your company. Sjö (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL Please restore my recent EDIT and displayed it on WIKI so my friends can get the actual meaning of YOTO. Even the my edit having all the references so you cant say that I am spam. And I don't have any concern about BRAND PROMOTION. YOTO might be have it's own website why they tried to promote their brand here in wiki? So please understand and restore my recent EDIT. Thanking you.

No. I won't replace the article about the prefecture in Togo with your text. Feel free to start an article named for example YOTO. But make sure the facts in the article are supported by reliable, independent sources. Sjö (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There is already a page at Yoto, you are not allowed to delete it to replace with your company. If you want to make an article about your company, make it at Yoto (company) instead. Repeated deletion of the Yoto article will be classed as vandalism. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)CRYSTAL

OK I am going to creat new article with name of YOTO. please do not delete it.

Reverted 3 times! Please do not break WP:3RR. Thanks. Pikachu2568 pika!sandmoves @ 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pikachu2568: What article would that be? Sjö (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project[edit]

Hi Sjö, Thank you for your advise! Itrinks (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reena Bhardwa[edit]

hay !!! who r u .. to interfare in Reena Bhardwaj's Article. please i want to edit new info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinjarvis (talkcontribs) 19:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The info you add appears to be all made up. Wikipedia is a serious project and not for your personal entertainment. Sjö (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Get Your Spelling Right.[edit]

I edited the page "Windtalkers" for a reason. I am an actual enrolled member of the Navajo Nation. If you want to keep re-editing it, at least get your facts and spelling right. And respect it. And if you need more validation, here you go:http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=yazzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.74.218 (talkcontribs)

Yahzee is the name of the character in the film according to the sources, so that is what we go by. Whether it should have been Yazzie is another question entirely. We don't change articles about films featuring Native American to reflect what the films should have been, we describe the films as they are. Sjö (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

cannabis page[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.121.159.130#April_2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.159.130 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you add unreferenced and improbable stuff (like Canada being a historically notable grower), remove sourced text and add a promotional link description you will be warned. Sjö (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

ugly and unreferenced note[edit]

It was in the artice of Islamic schools and branches for a long time before I put it to references, if it was ugly it should be removed immediately.. 68.100.171.6 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The text hadn't been there for a long time, it was put there today. That's not the reason I removed it, but because it was ugly since it was added inside a section heading, and because it was unreferenced. Sjö (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Jones Issues[edit]

I wasn't looking forward to trying to streamline that section. Thank you for just cutting the Gordian knot there. It was likely the right approach, and took a lot less time than I would have burned! Carl Henderson (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm ABCDEFAD. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kean Rabuyo, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. ABCDEFADtalk to me 13:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)