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.

Ethiopian borderlands[edit]

Hello you revised my deletion, can you look please at source 33 again? Neither page 122-123 or 158 is embedded in the link or on the page, if you go to google play bookstore the book is not there either. If you have the pages that will support the text, please provide the link? Thank you. (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: If a source/external link is noted with a page number, and the page number that was noted is not there, can you then remove the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabiloveAdol (talkcontribs) 12:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@GabiloveAdol: The book has 489 pages. Pages 122-123 and 158 are there. Go to a good library, review WP:PAYWALL. Don't mass delete content from wikipedia articles simply because you don't feel like going or can't go to a library, or have limited internet/google-books access. @Buckshot06 and @Cordless Larry have already explained this to you, yet you keep repeating your disruptive behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@GabiloveAdol: No, there is no reason to delete a source or the text it supports for the only reason that it isn't available online. Sjö (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sjö Oke so basically everyone can claim any controversial text with a source not available online for everyone? What if i go to library,pay for it, and see that isn't true what then? Doesn't that mean that people can make all sorts of claims, in which those who want verification need to buy the books in order to verify? What is the consequence for the one who made the claim? GabiloveAdol (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, they can but they can be called out for it. If you see a source used and when you check the source it doesn't support the text you can remove the text or add the template Template:Verify source. I suggest that you read that page to learn more about dealing with doubtful statements and unreliable sources. If you remove the text be sure to add an edit comment explaining the reason, and if the text is restored don't edit war but start a discussion on the article's talk page. In the mean time, until you have had the opportunity to check the sources, may I suggest that you add sources and links that are reliable? Sjö (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sjö: FWIW, the embedded quotes and cited sources in that section have already been verified by more than one editor, per the discussion on the article's talk page. It is a wall of text on Talk:Amhara people, TLDR type, so may need time and patience to wade through it all. I love your suggestion, "may I suggest that you add sources and links that are reliable". That would indeed be constructive and welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sjö Okay good to know, thanks. 'I can't tell if you mean that i added unreliable sources or links? Which sources and links where off concern to you? Or is it just a sugesstion? GabiloveAdol (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that your sources were unreliable, but since you are new to editing Wikipedia you might not know about the types of sources that we accept. Sjö (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sjö Okay thanks, i'm at least willing to add sources which can be verified online by everbody, i think it's unfair if not everyone can double check on sources, that's just my view on it. Can i please have your take on the Amhara people talk page, i asked you a question there, which was >>>> I would like to have your take on this if i may. Don't you think that the slavery and social stratification sections takes disproportionately large section of the history section, and that wikipedia readers might get an unneutral or unbalanced information? Wouldn't it be better to move the sections to the slavery in Ethiopia article, where all ethnic groups involved are mentioned, instead of adding similar sections in all ethnic groups? GabiloveAdol (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Currently two are in favor, one is opposing, and i would like to hear your thought about it. I don't know how to use diff yet or how to quote this directly to your page, but a admin view is much appreciated. Also people had gutted the article back in October in halve and then added these two sections, my question is mainly about neutrality and balanced information, i don't want a ethnic tribalism on wikipedia by adding similar sections on other ethnic groups pages, which are also mentioned in the sources. GabiloveAdol (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Sjö (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Priya Singh Paul page[edit]

Please remove the tag of Speedy deletion as there is no copyright violation anymore. The article posted in the website / was written by me only and I have taken the article from that website and also taken down this website like you can see and it does not exist anymore. The content in the wiki page of Priya Singh Paul has no copyright issue now.

@Graeme Bartlett: confirmed too that there is no copyright violation in the Draft: Priya Singh Paul page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysoul22 (talkcontribs) 10:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 
Most likely he didn't see it because it has been removed from the site. The copyright infringement still exist, since the text is the same (or almost the same) that was found in the deleted articles. When the text is removed from the web (except through the Wayback Machine) that doesn't remove the original author's copyright. However, I've asked Graeme to tell you how you can use your own texts on Wikipedia, even if they were not published with a free license from the beginning. Sjö (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Björn Höcke[edit]

The Youtube links are to the speech itself and specifically the location of comments within the speech. I think their inclusion is appropriate - as it is the primary source. If you want another reference: Nephron  T|C 16:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:YOUTUBE such links should usually be avoided. If Der Spiegel has covered it, that's a very good source that also shows that the speech has had more than passing attention. Please add that link and any other link that descibes the controversy. If there are no copyright or other problems with the links you could add them as supplementary sources (though it would be preferable with a link to a reliable source that then links to a video of the speech). Sjö (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Ymblanter. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Elongata, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, must be a technical error, we likely curated it simultaneously, and the edits clashed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2[edit]

Hello Sjö,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
A HUGE backlog

We now have 468 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.


This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

please stop deleting my pages[edit] and medici are very important companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texaschiro (talkcontribs) 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss on the article's talk page and add more sources to show notability, but don't remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created. If you can show that the article subjects are notable someone will delete them for you. Sjö (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Department of Population Science and Human Resource Development[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Department of Population Science and Human Resource Development—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop![edit]

Please stop or I may report you. I am doing the right thing because that name has recently just been retired. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pages should be moved using the "move" tool, not by copying and pasting. Also, you overwrote a disambiguation page that's good to have for other winds called Sarika. Sjö (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I am extremely disappointed by what you did. Yes I do know about the tool, and that you're not on to tropical cyclones. I will report this to another user in my project. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea if you've seen my previous one but I will request delete it. There already is a disambig article for it, so please stop! You are not even on to TCs. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know there already was a dab page for Sarika, I'd appreciate if if you could tell me where it is. But, that doesn't change the fact that cut and paste moves are against Wikipeda policy. Please stop using cut and paste moves. You say that you know about the move tool, so please use it. Sjö (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Please explain "doesn't matter if the name is retired". Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You used it in this edit comment, and I understood it as a justification for the edit. Sjö (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
For this case, which is normal and what we've always been doing for many years it does matter when it is retired. So what is your opinion about it? I just want to know what you're thinking. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter if the name is retired. The rules are quite clear: Moving the article with a cut and paste move destroys the editing history. That means that you cant see which editors contributed to the article. The attribution to editors is necessary in order to comply with the licensing requirements. So by cutting and pasting you're robbing editors of their recognition for contributing to the article, and violating the licensing agreement that you have to follow when editing on Wikipedia. Sjö (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If I may but in here: I would like to know what your source for the name retirements is bearing in mind that the typhoon committee who is control of the names doesn't meet till next week. I also will note that we have never just copied and pasted tc articles from one title to another - it has always been done by the admins of the project via the move button.Jason Rees (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC) :@Jason Rees: My source is in the Lists of tropical cyclone names article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I'll put it here instead as I realized that something's wrong with it (already fixed). Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Right I have now read the source and will note that it is only proposed that these names are retired. However, in order for them to save time later, they have listed all the names that have been proposed to be retired as they like to have a draft of the final report ready by the time the committee ends. As a result I am left wondering if it was too early to move the articles, especially since the proposed retired names can still be rejected and the debate is not always smooth sailing.Jason Rees (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: Well idk but I just did it early just to save time for later on. I was just checking if they proposed replacement names to the 2015 retired names until somehow three names from the 2016 season was stated in there. I was probably too excited sorry, I just like PTS names and I somehow memorize them. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2017
Perhaps you could revert the cut and paste moves then? And move the articles with the move tool or ask for admin assistance when the name issue is settled? Sjö (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You really need to calm down over this time thing. Wikipedia has no deadline and we can wait for the names to be formally retired at the committee later this month, before we formally move the articles in the proper way. However, I will talk to a couple of the admins and see what they think and or if they can undo the damage that you have done. :) Thank you Sjo for allowing me to jump in on this conversation :) Jason Rees (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear there. I meant that @Typhoon2013: could undo his/her changes. Sjö (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3[edit]

Hello Sjö,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 468 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Khan, Afghanistan Crown Prince[edit]

Hello Friend,

  I Need Your Help In Editing This Page I Need Some New Infos And Pics Of Prince Mohammad, I Will Be Thankful To You If You Help Me
  H.R.H Prince Muhammad Zahid Zadran 09:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Zahid-Zadran (talkcontribs)  

Proudboys wiki[edit]

You keep deleting our members — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, per the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Any information that's likely to be challenged must be sourced to reliable sources. That goes double for living persons. Sjö (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethnonationalist propaganda[edit]


We both know that only Finland, not Sweden, does statistics over self-designated mother tongues.

We also know that there is an unknown number of residents and citizens of Sweden who require translators in contact with authorities.

That proportion may have been 6,3% in 2012, but the source in question did certainly not support that figure.

Is your ambition here maybe to have Wikipedia to support controversial, though possibly correct, figures spread by Sweden Democrats, Pegida, and so on?

I hope not, but would be quite interested to see your explanation why you think the figure 9,2 for the year 2012 be preferable (and hopefully supported by some kind of credible source).

Kind regards!

/Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? Where did you get the idea that this is a controversial figure spread by right-wing nationalists? I take offense at your suggestion that I spread right-wing propaganda, and you would do well to read up on WP:NPA, WP:OR and WP:RS (and yes, I consider Ethnologue a reliable source). As for the source, it is right there in the infobox: [1]. If you have better sources that actually mention the number of speakers, please do add them to the article. But you do understand that the number is for native speakers, that is people that have Swedish as their mother tounge? Sjö (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hamish & Andy[edit]

Hi Sjo

I updated the Cauterization page earlier and i see that you've removed my changes. I don't know why? These guys are an actual radio show (with a huge following in Australia/NZ/Worldwide) and they featured cauterization on their show, which properly fits within the heading I added 'popular culture'.

Any chance you could explain why you decided it was necessary to delete the paragraph? I spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to properly code the references (which I assumed would give the article credibilty)?

Hope I haven't messed up by trying to add this. Just let me know your reasoning. Cheers!

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailsplitter (talkcontribs) 12:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, to begin with an article should attempt to give a balanced view of the topic, without undue weight to less important aspects (see WP:PROPORTION). The antics of a couple of radio hosts are unimportant compared to the topic of a widely used medical procedure. There's also the question of tone, articles should be written in formal tone (see WP:FORMAL). There's an essay on "In popular culture" content, WP:IPC, which says among other things that "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers (my emphasis). I don't think your edit meets that criterion. Finally, your edit was sourced to the Daily Mail, a notably unreliable source that is to be avoided as a reference. Sjö (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest disambiguation[edit]


I am very sorry I hijacked the article of 'Surendra Pratap Singh' as I wanted an article about a person with the same name and as I'm new to wikipedia I did not know how to go about it. Therefore, I would like to suggest disambuguation for the original article as Surendra Pratap Singh(journalist). Would that be possible and how can I enable such a thing for the article about the second person Surendra Pratap Singh(Author)? Thanks in advance. Larissaddn (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I suggest that you start an article at Surendra Pratap Singh (author) (click the redlink and begin). Your text is available in your edit history and you can copy it as you see fit. Then, after a couple of days when your article is stable you can add {{about|the journalist|the author|Surendra Pratap Singh (author)}} at the top of Surendra Pratap Singh. This will create a disambiguation link to your article, like this: .Sjö (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help. 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larissaddn (talkcontribs)

east german communist party[edit]

"clarity and grammar"? yes sorry my english is not perfect but "Though the GDR was a one-party state" is NONSENSE! see defention by everyone who has any knowlage on one party states INCLUDDING WIKIPEDIA! :, what is a one party state? wikipedia article: "A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system, or single-party system is a type of state in which one political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution. All other parties are either outlawed or allowed to take only a limited and controlled participation in elections" short answer state where one party has the legal monopoly, can you please correct me and the current version in good english, thanks! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, cool down. Shouting with capitals won't help convince me, and if you calm down and re-read your text before you post I'm sure that you can better make your case. As it is, I'm not sure what you're arguing, but I believe that you mean that the GDR wasn't a one-party state because it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition. Well, it actually does, since the last part of the sentence you quoted says "only a limited and controlled participation in elections" and believe that was the case. But, if you disagree with calling the GDR a one-party state why did you only remove the words "Though the" and leave the description? Sjö (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
ok if you like i wont use capitals, but as i said my english is not very very good (but i live in a western country sweden just like you! while am not claiming am an ethnic swede) so either we could talk in swedish (which is inappropriate since we are on a english speaking website). can you please have some patience and rethink what i wrote, there is no doubts by me about east germany being a one party state, in fact most one party states had muliple parties but íts somewthat problematic to say for that the words state and country mean the same thing, so a one party state is not the same as a country where all other parties dont exist or are banned, a state is " is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government" and by law, constitution etc.... says olny one party has political party makes a one party state, lets take east germany for exapmple: 1968 constitution of The German Democratic Republic (with 1974 amendments) "...........jointly realizing socialism
under the leadership of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party" (literal reference to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany) so please stop revering me and making things less clear like some kind of vague wording misinformation and Obscurantism dont use words like "perhaps", "meybe" "it its considerand that" and that also includes "Though the" this goes against official wikipedia policy of WP:WEASEL. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't understand your reasoning at all. Least of all how this applies to your edits. To begin with, do you argue that the GDR is or isn't a one-party state? (And it's OK to use capitals in the beginning of sentences and for proper nouns, but not for SHOUTING.) Sjö (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
yes i agree that the GDR is a one-party state and what i meant was that th...... fine! you dont even bother reading anyhing i wrote resting aside to atleast making an honest attempt at understanding it. (sorry about that! but i guess you can undestand how frustrating it could be to not being understood despite your very best efforts! i am much better at swedish than english and albeit we might still not agree we could still understand, but then again its inappropriate)
but you do care about wikipedia and its official policies, right? again see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and why we dont use certain wording here including "Though the...........but......there were also other parties........" Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"Though the..." is OK by the guideline, but if it makes you happy I can reword it. Sjö (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Slut shaming novels[edit]

I clearly cited the three novels as sources and gave the characters viewpoints, rather than my own commentary. Regarding Tess, she was deceitful when entering the marriage and unfaithful during the marriage. Slut shaming is a horrible thing, but so are lies and infidelity. If a woman wants to explore her sexuality with multiple partners, she should stay single or get divorced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCourtney2004 (talkcontribs) 09:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for you to push your own opinions om female sexuality, especially since the text you add is unsourced. Your own interpretation of the novels doesn't count as a source. Moreover, you are editwarring, please stop. Sjö (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

sorry for our "discussions" i just realised we had identical views on subjects we "discussed" we didnt not understand each other and our "discussions" were pointless[edit]

we both agree that east germany is a one party state, i also realised it turns out that accroding to that sources which i mentioned and studing the subject further: yes cuba is a totalitarian regime and according what i know what a totalitarian state is Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Your interpretation of edits[edit]

Your message indicated that I may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time I violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. Sjö (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree that I have inserted unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content. The content has been vetted and can be found on both McKnight's Twitter and Instagram pages as well as on Mendoza's Instagram page. The fact that someone may be whining that the "truth" has been inserted does not change the fact that the "truth" has been inserted. Therefore, if there exists controversy over the truth, it exists only to cover up the truth. Furthermore, an affirmative defense for defamation is truth. In other words, no defamation exists if the content is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcknighttruth (talkcontribs) 19:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that you have been blocked and your additions have been hidden because they were egregious violations of Wikipedia policy. We have a strict policy of using reliable sources, keeping the articles neutral in content and tone, and not using articles to draw one's own conclusions from separate sources. Calling someone a gold digger and implying dishonesty and deceit without reliable sources, like you did, is likely to lead to a block. Sjö (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4[edit]

Hello Sjö,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 468 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please Delete the "Little Satan (Israel Title)" Article[edit]

Hi, could you please delete the article titled "Little Satan (Israel Title)." This article is problematic in nature because it promotes a viewpoint that is explicitly Zionist and anti-Iranian in nature. Specifically the fact that it only seems to about how Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't like the fact that Iran has referred his country as the "Little Satan" and that from this, the article promotes Iran's anti-Israeli view as if it were based on pure antisemitism which is not the case. The article, if it were to still exist, should mention the reasoning behind the title from the Iranian perspective. Specifically it should mention the fact that Israel acts as both an imperialist power in the region displacing the Palestinian people and acts more or less as a puppet of American Imperialist interests. The "Great Satan" article at least mentions the reasoning behind Iran's labeling of the United States as such, because of it's imperialism. The article, which only depicts Benjamin Netanyahu's perspective on the term, is also explicitly Islamophobic in nature because of how it only depicts Netanyahu referring to the people who say it as Islamists. In addition, the article also violates neutrality by connotating anti-Zionism and anti-Zionist Muslims with terrorism by referring to how the term is used in terrorist propaganda. Also, the books cited are unreliable sources of Zionist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar200 (talkcontribs) 02:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I can't delete the article. Even if I could, I wouldn't do it without a discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The article is about the term, and in my opinion the term is notable enough to deserve its own article. If you think that the article is biased, please add content to balance it and discuss on the article's talk page. Sjö (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talkcontribs) 04:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Message from you[edit]

You sent me a message about an edit to a page on Diabetes. I've never made such an edit as I know little about that subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't feel that the warning was ment for you personally. IP adresses may be shared by several users, and somebody using the same IP as you vandalized Diabetes mellitus type 1 as seen here: [2]. If you create an account and log in you won't see warnings intended for other people. Sjö (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

To : Sjö[edit]

I'm sorry if I make a mistake. I'm just trying. I would like to say thank you if you forgive me, because I'm just newbie. AlienRebirth51 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you make helpful edits instead of disrupting ones. Sjö (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Eric Cullen[edit]

Hi, Sjö! Thanks for your edits on Eric Cullen. I agree that some sources are unreliable. It's tricky to write about this guy as there are very strong and opposing views, yet not a great amount of material to use. I put a new section on the talk page to consider your suggested removal of the three sources. There was an edit conflict with you, and it resulted in my inclusion of the source. I think there is material there which is not included in the other sources, but correct me if I am wrong. Best wishes Ewen (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this on Talk:Eric Cullen? Ewen (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, too. Sjö (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Tropophilic Organizations[edit]

What are the violations? Please take a little time to show them so that I may fix them! Just speedy deleting them does not help anyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoxsenWiki (talkcontribs) 05:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There are links in the deletion notice that will take you to the relevant rules, but in brief: it looks like advertising, the concept tropophilic organizations is not well-known enough for its own article and the article contains copyrighted text. Sjö (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Sjö, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Bull terriers[edit]

Source: Effing experience

It is a disgrace that you allow bullshit about bull terriers being so nice to people and other animals, when it is evident that it is one of the most violent and dangerous kinds of dogs. I hope the people, children and other animals killed by this mad beast weigh on your conscience. Watch-out for the karma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, you can readd it if you can find a citation for your edit. Sjö (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bull terriers[edit]

And you consider "the bull terrier club" a reliable source, right? Gimme a break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Suryavamsha (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)see please put controversies topic what I had putted before, please put the controversial topics after studying it ( so many articles are there if you willing it please read it , CEO Ravi prakash arrested tv9 , it is very common that all the news channels have controversy topics ex- times now Wikipedia india, etc,,

@Suryavamsha:: If there are lots of news stories then you should have no trouble finding a source that supports the text, and then you could add the information again. Sourcing is very important on Wikipedia, and the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says that contentious material about living persons must be removed if it is unsourced. There's also the question if the criticism is important enough to mention; there is a policy about neutrality that says that the article should represent viewpoints on the topic "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:DUE. The same policy says that Wikipedia "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." WP:PROPORTION. That means that sections devoted only to criticism are generally a bad idea. Sjö (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reports to UAA[edit]

You recently filed some reports on WP:UAA, including reporting Mohamed ahmed security and DESTINY FILM ENTERTAINMENT. Neither of these users has made any edits at all. UAA practice discourages reporting of new user names that have never edited, and the admins deal9ing with UAA usually decline to block on such a report. Also, there is apprently no company known as "Destiny Films Entertainment" So that name is not blockable asd promotional. The general consensus is that user names that are the names of fictional companies, such as "Wayne Enterprises" (Batman) are not blockable unless their edits are promotional or otherwise violate policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you look into a troll page for me?[edit]

Someone keeps trolling the Pacify Her redirect by turning it into a poorly-sourced, poorly-written article. Would you mind helping me? --Aleccat 11:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems you've already taken care of it, but I watchlisted it so I can keep an eye on it. Sjö (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Its Derry not Londonderry[edit]

Can i ask you to elaborate on how my edit wan unconstructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padraig Mac Chathmhaoil (talkcontribs) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:DERRY. Sorry about the warning on your talk page, but I thought you were an old vandal using a new name. Sjö (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Erased edit[edit]

you erased my section about anti-Semitism which is a very important thing to not erase. then also I feel like you are stalking and harrssing me because you went and deleted my veggie tales post, all of which is accurate and true and the veggie tales do teach lessons. So, please to not harass me because there are a long of important things we need on this internet. (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research to understand why your edits were reverted. In short, your additions were basically your own opinions with no sources to support them. In addition they were not very well written, and the text about anti-semitism in Moral character was out of place. After all, there are many things that can be considered flaws in moral character and there's no particular reason to mention anti-semitism above all others. You might also want to consider that when more than one editor revert your edits perhaps you should think about why they were reverted and not add the exact same text again. Perhaps you should start editing about something that you don't feel so strongly about, to learn the ropes and build yourself a reputation as a serious editor? Sjö (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)