User talk:83.249.4.255

April 2016

Hello, I'm FuriouslySerene. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Åsa Romson, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Why are you deleting a correct translation which is sourced to a dictionary that cannot be edited by users at the Åsa Romson page?(1) I can perhaps understand that you deleted google translate, but this is a serious dictionary (which, of course, gives the same results as the previous google translate source did)? Thereby, you are removing correct and relevant facts from an article, thus making the article less correct and factual and falsely portraying a person's actual words. How can you accept the previous Wiki users' translations of her words that don't even provide a translation source, but have instead been translated by an anonymous Internet user, but refuse an official dictionary translation? My head is beginning to spin at the inconsistent logic. How does that unknown Wiki user's translation trump official dictionary translations? What source could you possibly feel is more valid for a Swedish/English translation than a Swedish/English dictionary (which furthermore demonstrably gives the same results as the previous google translate link you deleted)? What source can I possibly provide other than a Swedish/English dictionary that you won't delete in these circumstances? There is none. You have thereby made it impossible to correct the politically motivated faults (i.e. political propaganda) in the Åsa Romson article. Instead, you have allowed unchecked, anonymous translations but forbidden a dictionary sourced translation, on the grounds that a dictionary source is an unreliable novel synthesis. Crazy, very crazy stuff.

(1)http://www.svenskaengelskaordbok.com/en/dictionary-swedish-english/olycka

May 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Åsa Romson. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

An official dictionary is not a novel synthesis for the definition of a word. It is the most valid source possible. What an utterly preposterously ignorant statement. Take it from someone with an MA in professional translation who furthermore works as a professional qualified translator at Sweden's leading university. Furthermore, a synthesis is a combination of several ideas to form a new single idea. A translation is not a synthesis. I don't think you know what the word even means.

I answered you on my talk page, but in case you don't see, if you have a source that translates Romson's statements a different way, than you can add it. But you can't add your own dictionary research to the page to question a reliable source. Hope that makes sense. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesnt, in the slightest. You allow the daily mail's translation - who have been pursuing a campaign against Sweden and Romson to the point that it has become an embassy affair (1) - who have provided a translation that portrays Romson's comment incorrectly and purposefully intends to make her look ridiculous, and you refuse a professional Swedish translator's truthful and correct dictionary reference to show the flaw. That's a load of nonsensical crap, and the result is that you protect and proliferate incorrect political information, i.e. untruthful political propaganda. Well done. You are (an unwitting?) part of a propaganda movement that is harming my country.

(1) About your "reliable source" (Jesus Christ) http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/mar/01/embassy-says-daily-mail-is-running-swedish-refugee-propaganda-campaign

"Sweden’s leading news agency, TT, quoted from a report sent by the embassy to the foreign ministry in Stockholm which states: Sweden is being used as a deterrent and an argument against allowing more refugees into the UK... The tabloid Daily Mail has launched a campaign against Swedish migration policy. The Daily Mail characterises Sweden as naive, and an example of the negative consequences of a liberal migration policy.” The report, approved by the Swedish ambassador Nicola Clase, was sent to the offices of Sweden’s prime minister Stefan Löfvens and state secretary Hans Dahlgren. According to its report, the embassy is said to be working with various UK agencies to counter what it regards as the negative portrayal of its government’s handling of the refugee crisis. The embassy also noted that the stories republished by the paper’s digital arm, Mail Online, have received comments it regards as racist A Swedish embassy spokesman stressed that it is part of its routine work to send such reports to Stockholm. These are “statements of fact”'

When you edit the page like you are doing, you make it appear like your translation appeared in the citations that are given on the page. As I've mentioned before, you need to provide a reliable source if you want to post a different translation. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Åsa Romson, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There are, OF COURSE, no articles on the mistranslation of a single word. The only possible souce I can use for a mistranslation is, OF COURSE, a dictionary, of which I have posted TWO sources. Since the unsourced translation you are protecting (you have no source to the translator for the Daily Mail article, but you DO have a serious source that the daily mail is pursuing a campaign against Swedish immigration, of which Åsa Romson is one of the most prominent defenders), the claim is in dispute, and Wikipedia should at the very least thus react to a disputed claim (which claim has been documented with dictionary sources)

You are posing impossible criteria, and perpetuating and protecting political lies. You are the disruptive one, in the real world. I have shown you the proof. You are behaving dishonestly, in relatio to the truthful fact that you are protecting a mistranslation, totally unqualified to moderate since you protect falsehoods and ban corrections. I will spend some time today on lodging a complaint against you, "Administrators open to recall" and other solutions that I'll ask my brother, a wikipedia mod since almost a decade back, about.

Furthermore, the claim that she used the word "accident" is fully incorrect. She was speaking SWEDISH and was not using ENGLISH words. The word she spoke was "OLYCKA" not "ACCIDENT". And OLYCKA means both accident OR catastrophe. She OBVIOUSLY meant "catatrophe", and its just ridiculous that you would forbid that.