User talk:Sjö

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond here, so please watch this page for my reply. I move old conversations to the archive, usually once a year.

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

Why did you revert my edits? Give reasons.

On what basis did you claim that my edits were socialistic perspectives? And explain why my edits were not suitable for lede, when it is just introducing the concept of ownership as the article should in its opening. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede should be an overview of the article and reflect what is in the body of the article. It should not introduce new information, and what information is there should be presented in an accessible way. Sjö (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You missed a point. On what basis did you make the claim that my edits were socialistic perspectives and therefore biased? Just because the name of the book is Socialism, on that basis?

Second Point

What part of it is "new information"? My edits were just expounding on the topic of ownership in such a way that was very accessible and introductory. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That ownership is only related to economic goods is a questionable view and I believe not the general opinion. The differentation between legal, sociological and economic ownership is less problematic, but the reasoning about "having" seems to be specific to this particular philosopher. And it is absolutely not accessible. However, if you think the text should be included I think that you should start a discussion about the addition at Talk:Ownership. My talk page is not the place to discuss article content. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you even thinking before replying?

What is written at the very initial of the article?

"possession of property that may be any asset tangible or intangible".

What property do you know that does not have an economic value? Property is an asset be it in control of an individual or the government or state, and therefore an economic good. Most, if not all property is an economic good.

And you said "reasoning of having seems unique to that particular philosopher"?

My edit just talked about possession, and that possession of something does not mean that the possessor has the ownership of it. Example - A thief stealing something does not make the thing its, and that the law recognises this. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. Sjö (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss article content, I am here to ask on what basis you removed mine? And that's your reply? You just dodged everything. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You are discussing article content. This is the wrong place. Take it to the article talk page. Please stop posting here. Sjö (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You removed my edits and now you are telling me to go to talk page and yalk there? Yes thats the best dodge i have ever seen. I dont think you will address any points I made. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Split rock of Horeb

Thanks for catching that. Glad to see you've seen the article, which doesn't show any signs of notability as the sources only have one line mentions. What do you think? I've warned the editor about falsely labelling edits as fixing typos. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I made a quick Google search to see if there was any reliable source about the scholars and archaeologists claim, and I got lots of hits to religious sites. Going back, I can see that there seems to be no reliable sources at all in that search. I think that the article at least qualifies for a PROD. Sjö (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It now has only one source as Newsweek is not longer considered reliable so I removed it.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present). See Rephidim, a pretty bad article. One source there is bad but interesting as it says it might not be able to identify it. Then there is Mount Horeb. Again not an RS, [1], I tried this search of Google books [2] but to my horror I found I've messed up my display and I can't read previews. Everything has a blue background and I only see partial bits. Anyway, stopping now for my treadmill work. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My edits on Sweden Democrats

I think you were correct there, I tried using ctrl+F to look for "welfare chauvinism", but none. Maybe from the text to the left beside template of information where it mentions it is a welfare chauvinist party. 75.113.159.27 (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Spamming on List of snipers

Hi, I have been watching this editor user:Alexwolf258 who has been spamming the page List of snipers despite of you reverting his edit on the page, please have a look at this!! I was very tempted to give him a warning on his talk page but thought to inform you instead as you can handle it more better, cheers!!!

Spider1217 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Spider1217 I think I don't want to get involved in that dispute. There are a lot of dubious information about snipers, so it comes down to if the sources are reliable. It is clear that Alexwolf258 has been edit warring, so you could warn him about that if you want to. Sjö (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Nat Turner

The latest discovery on Nat Turner identity. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/movies_tv/article/Demystifying-Nat-Turner-9881896.php Creolehombre2 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care, but don't call your changes typo fixing or similar when they clearly are not. Sjö (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Languages

I ask if it exist a new and updated source for the knowledge of european languages in all countries of European Union? Is it possible add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.181.146 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know the source https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/1958/1(1)/2013-07-01 is up to date. Anyway, even if there is no other source, there is no reason for you to add unsourced text or to remove large blocks of text from the article. Sjö (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.181.146 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That source doesn't look like it includes all languages, but if you can find the original report maybe you can use it in the Knowledge section. Please note that you changed the section about official languages in your last edit, and offical languages are different from knowledge of languages. Sjö (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

However, the source is of 2012 or 2016. It said "Technical Specification" (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2016, in Europeans and their Languages (PDF). Special Eurobarometer 386 (Report). European Commission. June 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2016.". Maybe, it isn't so up to date I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.19.140 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

About National Popular Consciousness

I would like to clarify that although the party is clearly not referred to as neo-Nazi to given sources, its founder amd leader is a neo-Nazi. I don't know what happens in this case, so I'll leave it up to you to do what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Popular_Consciousness&diff=prev&oldid=1232531768 D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I have read your comment. Sjö (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

List of tracks gauge

Veteran courses, museums and preservation railways in Denmark:

• 1. Stenvad Mosebrug-Peat railway (Tørvebane).
• 2. Bunkermuseum Hanstholm.
• 3. Hjerl Hede.
• 4. Stenvad Mose.
• 5. Ree Park – America Express (Amerika Expressen).
• 6. Lille Vildmose, Dokkedal – Peat-train (Tørvetog).
• 7. Hedeland veteran course (veteran railway).

Existing narrow-gauge Danish industrial railways and active narrow-gauge railways in Denmark:

• 1. Østerbygård Dambrug.
• 2. Fuglsø Mose.
• 3. Pindstrup Mosebrug.
• 4. Store Vildmose.

Why removing this? And I’m not Spidy30, and PS just remember be careful what you say about other peoples right Sjö, or a person you think I am without you having a single proof that I am this person but I am not at all Sjö. 87.49.45.201 (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You can see here is a link right, and you say adding a reliable source, that is a lie because you have deleted contents with links and websites so I am not adding anything without links or websites or something like that. 87.49.45.201 (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope you have a good explanation as to why you have removed this when there are links next to it? 87.49.45.201 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I answered at User talk:87.49.45.201. Sjö (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

inclusion criteria

hello, let's have a discussion on why you think my edits to the list of terrorism does not meet the inclusion criteria, thanks Rabawar (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The first point says that an attack should be described as terrorism by a consensus of reliable sources. I do not see that this is the case. Did you find WP:RS that call this a terrorist attack? Sjö (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I found this article by the Washington Post a couple days ago, I'm sure I could find more sources but this is just the one I have on hand. it states: "Numerous international law experts, including a U.N. panel, accused Israel of violating international law and carrying out a form of terrorism, no matter that it was an attempt to weaken a known terrorist organization." I believe this constitutes a reliable source and is the reason why I think the explosions should be included in the list Rabawar (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a WP:RS except that it might be an opinion piece, but I do not see a consensus of reliable sources. Also, since you have at least one WP:RS, I think that you should present your case at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2024 to get a broader discussion. Individual user talk pages are not the best place for longer discussions on article content.Sjö (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

youre right, I should bring this up on the talk page, in the meantime I'll look for more sources, the original source said that "numerous international law experts, including a U.N. panel, accused Israel" so I assumed that was a consensus but I'll find sources for the individual law experts and the U.N panel before introducing it to the talk page. thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me Rabawar (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What "film" is

In reverting my question/correction in the text in 2017 Stockholm truck attack you stated "'film' can mean electronic recordings". This flies in the face of the definition of the word. Would you please provide a cite to a durable, reputable source (in English)? JingleJim (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

For onstance https://www.filmconnection.com/reference-library/the-new-world-of-digital-filmmaking/ that talks about digital film or https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/film that makes no mention of any distinction between physical and digital filming. Do you have a source that says ”film” (in the sense of moving images) can only be used when the medium is a physical, moving, photosensitive strip of material? Sjö (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Troublemaker Pillowpeanut

Thank you for reverting the edits made by their socks. Already reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pillowpeanut by Z. Patterson on [3] ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. i saw that after I reported them at WP:AIV. Sjö (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Mudvayne

Hello,

The edit to "Dig" by Mudvayne is due to the "brbr deng" meme being an explicit reference to the bassist's slapping ("brbr") and popping ("deng") techniques. Reverting the change makes the explanation less clear and more general.

Please leave as-is. :) Confoozled37 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Cucumber sandwhich

My two citations from the book and the BBC have shown loafs of bread are used . you have not added citations to show that a Pullman loaf is used in the making of this sandwhich which is traditionally British. I have removed the Pullman loaf suggestion feel free to replace It when you added citations showing that these traditionally sandwiches are made with a Pullman loaf rather than just a loaf of bread. In future please check both citations and if disagreeing with the evidence provided feel free to add your own evidence Sharnadd (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sharnadd -- just to be clear here, again you are misunderstanding policy... Per WP:NOCONSENSUS when editors are unable to find consensus, proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. (Emphasis added) Your removal of Pullman would constitute the bold edit described here (deviating from the 6+ years the article has been written as such), and the official policies of WP says that the article should be previously as the article was previously. You do not have the authority to say which side has to prove their edit is proper -- rather in the case you cannot work towards consensus making with other editors, the article will revert back to including Pullman, per policy. TiggerJay (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

i agree that sjo should have put a discussion in rather than revert back to unsourced information Sharnadd (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sharnadd - please understand that the above statement was written addressed to you... So where you read "you" insert Sharnadd if that is helpful. Sjö actually acted consistently with policy, which you appear to have a problem reading and understanding. This further demonstrates a failure of your competency as it relates to editing on Wikipedia. To be absolutely clear, policy states that after Sjö reverted your edits, it is Sharnadds responsibility to start a discussion if they feel like the information was reverted in error -- NOT the other way around. TiggerJay (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Really where is it the policy to revert sourced information without reading the sources back to unsourced information. I had already started a discussion. Sjo should have joined it rather that just revert with the remark that he wasn't bothering to read the sources Sharnadd (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot help you if you do not take the time to read policies which have already been provided to you, which would answer your questions. TiggerJay (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read the policy I have replied under the admin as it refers to the edits you raised Sharnadd (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I need to mention that the source that I read did not mention cucumber sandwich at all. I am well aware that sandwiches can be made with different types of bread, which is what that source said. But if you want to source that a cucumber sandwich is made with a special type of bread you must have a source that mention cucumber sandwiches and explicitly states that cucumber sandwiches are made with that type of bread. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Sjö (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

https://themillersdaughter.co.uk/recipes/cucumber-sandwiches/ Sharnadd (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9492326/Cucumber-sandwiches...-worlds-coolest-food.html. traditionally bread is used though brown is meant to be better for health. Rarely is the term loaf used as in the UK we say slices of bread as usually the loaf of bread is already pre sliced before purchase and if not people know how to slice bread Sharnadd (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what it is you want to support with the links, could you clarify exactly what it is that supports the non-specific "loaf". Here is the archived version of the Telegraph link, btw https://web.archive.org/web/20120823203040/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9492326/Cucumber-sandwiches...-worlds-coolest-food.html. Sjö (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I am.not.supprting a certain type of loaf just showing that it is made with slices of bread as stated most recipes and articles assume the reader already knows that sliced bread comes from some kind of loaf. A traditional British sandwich using the American term Pullman loaf may be confusing. Sandwhich bread is acceptable as several countries use the term. Sharnadd (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TiggerJay (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ham sandwich

Is there a reason that the short description should not match the origin Sharnadd (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A sandwich bar star for you!

And while all of this is going down over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#3R / Edit Warring Sharnadd, you’re offline. I hope you were at least enjoying a nice sandwich which might be of either the ham or cucumber variety. (Said with a sarcastic smirk). With two admins now coming down on this issue, I hope it will come to a close soon. Cheers and keep up your good work.. TiggerJay (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)