Jump to content

User talk:KJohansson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KJohansson (talk | contribs) at 11:02, 21 November 2009 (→‎G8 - Great power). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi

?

KJohansson,

Can you explain the meaning of this edit? It seems you blanked out a large section of text for no reason. RedZionX 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was outsourcing material KJohansson (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Bear List

On the basis that you removed Hanro Smitsman from the list just now you may wish do do one or both of enhance the article on Smitsman / participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanro Smitsman -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete

Please give us a thumbs up or down whether we should delete Global city in Talk:Global_city#Proposal_to_delete_references_to_.22Global_City.22_in_city_articles Kransky (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU flag

Hi. The reason this image was removed from the articles is that it is a photo one random EU flag that has nothing to do with the countries. So it adds no additional value to the article as it does not show how a specific country is connected to the EU. Besides, the image is then repetitive and of poor quality. There was a discussion about that at Talk:Germany and it seems we have a consensus there. If you agree, can you remove the image again? --Tone 13:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're not monitoring that talkpage, I answered there. Seems I didn't write the reason clearly enough. By the way, currently the majority is against that particular image in the article so you may want to remove it again. Greetings. --Tone 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I´m going to watch the discussion at the Germany article from now on, no problem. After quickly counting the pro and contra editors, I saw 3 in favor for the flag and 2 against did I missed something ? KJohansson (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. Now you are the second person who is in favour of the image, before it was something like 5:1. There was some discussion at other paragraphs as well, kind of decentralized debate... --Tone 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great power

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Great power. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to hear my statement about that ? As a thinking individual I find the level of ignorance and hypocrisy you and some others display, an insult to my intelligence. By now, it is not wrong to realize that the level of rejection of multiple, multiple, multiple, scientifical, scientifical, scientifical sources is a direct attack by all measures in the first place. You feel personally attacked ? By what, may I ask ? I AM the one who is shocked by the blunt level of stupidity. Are you defending this behaviour as well. Are you defending the crying for "we need consensus" when in fact this means, "we don´t want a change, we piss on your references, we piss on reality". I´m sorry Phoenix, unless you and others come up with active, realistic, serious proposals which not constantly defy the obvious truth, you probably have to live with direct comments to your actions. KJohansson (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you said You feel personally attacked ? By what, may I ask ?, do you not know what you have said?
In my eyes these are the worst editors at Wikipedia and the most dangerous ones. They betray all ideals and policies at Wikipedia.
That is a clear violation of WP:No personal attacks
You have even said other things like
I´m still shocked about the ignorance here. Even more shocked I am by the blunt ongoing promotion of the stupidity.
The opposition has no arguments anymore apart from hypocritical chitchat... You and Nirvana have exposed dishonest intentions and contradictionary arguing.
Violating WP:Civility, WP:Etiquette and WP:Assume good faith.
These show that you are no longer willing to edit on this article in line with wikipedias policies. As of the moment people are no longer even willing to hear what you have to say because your edits, actions & words have discredited you. Why don't you listen to yourself when you first edited the article and said "I don´t want to put in to much heat here", and calm down. What you are doing now is not helpful.
Because of your last comment I AM the one who is shocked by the blunt level of stupidity I must again ask you to stop.
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, I find it hard to assume good faith after many contradictionary edits. I find it hard to assume you aim for consensus after the blunt rejection of so many academic sources. Honestly, I am the one who finds it uncivil to block every single fact of reality. I seriously wonder about you still looking in a mirror while thinking not to be a hypocrite. You are obviously pretty good in citing every policy of Wikipedia netiquette. How about sticking to the first rules of Wikipedia. Discussing relevant, up to date sources and acknowledging them ? KJohansson (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, I will not tolerate any more personal attacks on your part against any editor. One more disparaging and ad hominem comment from you about editor are "looking in a mirror while thinking not to be a hypocrite" and there will be intervention. Comment on the content not on the editor. WP:No personal attacks: Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This clearly constitutes a flagrant personal attack. Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G8 - Great power

I recommend to engage on this issue on a constant basis. Please mind the Netiquette of Wikpedia as well. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was about time you showed up. I´m going to investigate the nature of the 2 accounts Nirvana/Phoenix it seems likely to be a socketpuppet / double account. Nirvana already was blocked because of socketpuppetry. Lear 21 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I´d like to be more often at Wiki but haven´t much time to visit frequently. KJohansson (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support your inclusion of the G8 image on the great power article but maybe to make the issue less contentious it should be placed elsewhere on the article? Bambuway (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes it can be placed in many sections, no problem. KJohansson (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "Status dimension" section where it once used to be might be best. Bambuway (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can this debate be about sources for once and not "I like this". Please lets talk about what sources back up this claim. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Phoenix after such a long time your request to debate sources seems only shallow and passively aggressive. You know what I learned about sources at university ? That there is no such thing as a single allmighty source. Acedemic wisdom relies on a plethora of sources, which when it comes to identify a specific truth must indicate in a certain direction. I havn´t looked at all sources from Lear but I googled many word combinations. The majority of them point in one direction, saying the G8 was a global governance meeting made by the major powers of the world in order to speak and decide about global problems. This is clearly relevant as the article already mentions many occasions where conferences of great powers ruled the future. Up to now there is not a single hint that you or the other guy acknowledge the importance of the G8. To say it simple, you piss on the sources. This is very insincere. It is not in the interest of the theme "Great power". Come up with an intelligent comment where to put the G8. KJohansson (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes university is a Great place, one that I look back on with many fond memories. But please such comments like your request to debate sources seems only shallow and passively aggressive and you piss on the sources or Come up with an intelligent comment where to put the G8. Count4er everything that Wikipedia, heck what an Encyclopaedia is about. You really need to read Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially :
These are the core fundamentals of wikipedia, So please understand when we ask for something to back up claims, it is not to be annoying. Heck if you disagree with people, you can always get it check out by 3rd parties in wikipedia.... But constantly reverting content is just not acceptable. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first fundamental of Wikipedia is to respect sourced content. Not only one source but to measure many sources. The second is to concentrate on content via discussions. You and the other guy are hectically citing one policy after another avoiding the real discussion. I´m not interested in your endless lists of policies when at the same time refusing to accept core valuable information. You know pretty well that you have nothing in your hand to prevent the article of getting an update. KJohansson (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look you have me all wrong; but there is not much more I can say than what I have said in the past few months to convince you otherwise. You don't like policies... Well I'm sorry but you will not go far in life if you don't work with the codes of conduct found in all facets of life. If you don't like what we have said, take it to other people it is your right after all. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. rule of Wikipedia is CONTENT comes first. 2. rule of Wikipedia is CONTENT is king. 3. rule of Wikipedia is CONTENT based on sources. If you don´t get this, we will have many months in front us at he Great power article. I tell you what, I could take all your feable policies and take them against you, but I´m not interested, I´m interested in CONTENT. I´m interested in placing the G8 at the article, nothing else. You know why ? Because right now the article is not neutral, it is biased, it arbitrarily leaves out crucial content. Content which has been academically proven to be relevant. The article (as probably Lear said) does not fulfil its own scope. I promise you that this issue will not be settled until the article gets a longterm stable update. KJohansson (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken word for word from the intro of Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
This is taken word for word from the intro of Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
I hope that you understand now. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phoenix,

This is taken word for word from the intro of Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
This is taken word for word from the intro of Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
I hope that YOU understand now. This is the last time I answered any of the policies. Maybe you rather concentrate of getting a bureaucrat instead of a writer. KJohansson (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nirvana888 suspected sock puppet found

User:Zhonghuo is almost certainly another sock puppet of User:Nirvana888 if you check the edit histories. I thought I would let you know to help you keep track of this troublesome user. Wegos (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KJohansson&oldid=327093330"