User talk:Adville

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

23 Vaccines

Adville our current focus on the 23 vaccines considered essential medicine by the WHO is going well in various languages. It looks like many articles are non-existent in svwp check here. Content Translation tool (beta feature) could be used to easily translate the leads of those articles (first 4 paragraphs). Please let me know if you do a couple so I can include svwp in our project's scope.--Lucas559 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will try to look into this during the spring.It sure is interesting. Adville (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk in Gothenburg

Hey Adville I am coming to give a talk at a hospital in Gothenburg Sweden the 6th of Apr. User:CFCF is organizing. Would be great to have more Wikipedians their :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds great! I told my backoffice this to see if they vsn book me for work i Gothenburg that date. What hospital is it? Maybe I can get something there... 😉 I'm a medtech field engineer, specialized on some machines, so it might be possible. Best regards Adville (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you. user:Doc James... Adville (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:CFCF can you provide more details? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear user:Doc James. Itseems like I will be able to go to Gothenburg for this event. I will probably work with a centrifuge before noon at the hospital you'll come to, and will then be able to attend. The back office is trying to fix that now. Svwp are discussing the medical articles right now (started today at Bybrunnen, village pump), just because of this... how we can be better and what guide lines we shall have. That's good. They have also created a "wiki-fika" after (a chatt for the sake of meeting other wikipedians). So hopefully we will meet soon. Best regards, Adville (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Failed in pinging you, user:Doc James... new try. ;-) Adville (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. Exciting and hope to see lots of local Wikipedians their :-) It appears like medical content is somewhat controversial. It represents about 2.5% of local readership for the 4000 medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I just wrote at Bybrunnen about that, user:Doc James. At Svwp we do not want to have instructions how to treat different illnesses. That can lead to people in need of a doctor thinks they can treat themselves. An article will never get the patients sick history and so on, which will affect the treatment. The problem is also to few wikipedians in svwp has enough knowledge in medicine, and if someone changes things with not so good sources, how will we prevent that. Some suggestions have come there, and I had one too (create a medicine watch list that can be added to the top links if you want. Some of us in svwp have that for "project neutrality"). In the discussion also some possible helping organisations have been mentioned with the same goal as we have. So even before you arrive the wheels are rolling!

One funny thing is that when I talked with a "product specialist" for a cancer diagnosis company (I'm serving their robots) she said that she reads on Wikipedia about the different genes and so on, and wanted more to be written about that narrow field she is interested in. (unfortunately I forgot the name of it now). Now I have to sleep. Good night Adville (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes the same on English Wikipedia. We do not want people using WP to treat themselves. We only want to provide dry facts and people with their doctors are to make decisions. You can learn stuff on WP but you cannot learn how to treat yourself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Doc James, It seems that I have to go to Denmark Wednessday-Thursday instead of Gothenburg, so unfortunately I will not be able to attend the happening the 6:th. However I will work at that hospital on Tuesday, so I wonder if you are in Gothenburg the day before, 5:th of April. Maybe we could meet then instead. Best regards, Adville (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I arrive Apr 5th at 10 am. Yes lets try to get together. Will be jet lagged but that is ok Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds great,User:Doc James! I'll send you an e-mail with contact info. Best regards, Adville (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Complaint of edit warring

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Four (so far) users from Swedish Wikipedia reported by User:SergeWoodzing (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I know about that and thinks it will be solved soon. Best regards Adville (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Personalization of article talk page discussions

To me, every time any user mentions another user's name in an article talk page discussion, the discussion becomes personalized.

For years now, I've always try to avoid mentioning anybody's name in that context and try to stick to the topic. When it looks to me like a group of users (especially unexpected drop-ins) are ganging up on another user, or otherwise acting as a group, I might mention the group per se (leaving it up to others to judge that part), but even then I try to avoid mentioning their names.

Way way way too many discussions quickly get polluted by personalization, and much much much too long because of it, with certain users pouncing on other users by name, and others user feeling they need to defend themselves personally, which defensiveness especially pertains to users who are well known by user alias or (at worst) by their real names.

I've also begun, during the last few years, to try very hard to remember never to personally reply to comments directed at me personally on such talk pages, and try instead to divert that personal comment back to the actual subject being discussed.

Each and every discussion on article talk pages benefits greatly from not being personalized, in my opinion, and hardly ever suffers from avoiding that. English Wikipedia's WP:TPG is a very helpful page. I posted this under your last comment at Talk:Prince Bernadotte and am posting it also here so that we can continue discussiing it here, if necessary, not there. Don't think I'll have to much to add tho. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To refrain from mention other users' names is a bit pointless when you, SergeWoodzing, so clearly singles out other users, labels them "non-neutral" and thus tries to invalidate their opinions. The fact that you filed a report against four users (myself and Adville included), which only resulted in yourself being warned, is a clear indication that your strategy is not working, and that you yourself let your personalized view affect your judgement. /Elzo 90 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adville. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Adville

I found you user account via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive940#Odd edits please have a look at User talk:Aciram#Thomas Schreiber (innkeeper)

As you will see from my previous exchange with Aciram I have given her a lot more leeway over Talk:Lady-in-waiting#Full citations needed because of the issues she raised. However this is a brand new article and the defence is wearing thin given that she is fully aware of the policy and guidelines involved around adding information to the English Wikipedia. Any thoughts you have on this matter would be appreciated. -- PBS (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing me. I'll answer on the discussionpages. Best regards, Adville (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

user:PBS, it seems like she was scared away. Hopefully she will come back soon. Anyway I understand ehat uou ment. Best regards, Adville (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. Let's hope so. -- PBS (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't make accusations on the deletion page.

Like I wrote, don't make baseless accusations. I *have* on many occasions pointed out the issues with your inconsistent handling of MED compared to other parties on SvWP. However, I've also stressed that there is no use in trying to create an article or complain about it. As you well know the people who have "supported" changes to both the Ilan article and MED are – judging from their editing patterns – like the moonlanding hoax guy – very likely not actual MED members.

As you also know the problem has been discussed on FB and other social media. Every time that happens we run the risk of someone "testing" if what we say is true, or some more far-right individual taking it upon themselves to "fix things" or whatever they think they're doing. Note that someone like Josefin Utas with over 6000 followers on twitter is likely to pick up one or two stray individuals if a complaint is tweeted/retweeted.

What you think of as "MED-supporters" is likely to be SD-leaning people who "like" but will not vote (and does not belong to) MED. We do have an internal discussion forum where the Wiki-situation has been discussed, but as far as I know no one besides me has actually involved themselves in the discussion (with the exception of Claesh1 who drafted that first, barebones version of the page and then left the discussion. You then banned his account even though he had not been involved in any of the consequent discussions or editing in some blocking-orgy that frankly was very disappointing to see). In fact, we strongly stress that people should not make their own attempts to revive our page.

From MED there is only this account, which is why I have been holding on to it even though it has very bad "reputation" on SvWikipedia. This way you know exactly who is representing MED and who isn't.

Hmc1282171021 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that attack came very handy after voting here for deletion. And you know I did not accuse you bit those who follows you. It is also good that enwp can see what happens when someone disagree in this matter. (Sd like or not, that doesn't matter, I am only interesting in wiki). Finaly. Thanks for saying uou try to make your followers not trying to do harmfull editing. That only hurts your cause (like here), and you also know I blocked on troll trolling on your page. Best regards Adville (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, do you see anything I could possibly gain by someone defacing your SvWiki page? There is nothing whatsoever. That could just as well be someone who doesn't like us (trust me, plenty of those to go around) who would provoke admins in order for them to take "action" against MED. For example, the block I received in the beginning of September was because Riggwelter mistakenly believed I was using another (very provocative) account as well because at one time we were editing the same page (that was ludicrous by the way, because if R had looked into the logs he would have seen that unless I was simultaneously typing on two devices with different IPs, there's no way the other account could have been me).

So yes, it keeps happening that someone on SvWiki attributes bad things to me or MED that – with a clearheaded look at it – could not possibly be attributed to us. And frankly I'm dead tired of it. I don't really care how "convenient" it was. For me it was *very inconvenient* because it's distracting from the facts, which is that Dnm made 5 clearly false and unsubstantiated claims. You should really be ashamed for saying agreeing that they're true. Like "they claim 1000 but they're lying", which he then claims has been "proven true in Swedish Wikipedia". Now we both know that this is blatantly false. Same with the other claims. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If it wasnt one of yours, why did that person xhange in the original MED article to male it become yours? Ir was a med suporter. Let now things go as it should and come back when relevance exists. Adville (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The one who defaced your page was only some IP with that single contribution, according to the link you provided: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Bidrag/81.232.49.178

As for relevance, I absolute disagree because of:

1. Relevance criteria on SvWiki is much different there than here. You have deliberately put the bar high, and are about to take it even higher if I read the discussion right.

2. Relevance criteria also contains the very subjective "speciellt uppmärksammad". The fact that you've deliberately downplayed any proof of that for MED + raised the bar several times ("You need to be registered with Valmyndigheten, come back then" → "No, that's not enough, you need to have a mention in national media" → "No, that's not enough, that's just an editorial, come back after the election")

3. "Speciellt uppmärksammad" and also relevance of "politiska vildar" is applied inconsistently, where Yger argued relevance for "Spritpartiet" due to 1 "politisk vilde", while us having at least 5 in different municipalities does not count.

4. The fact that even adding facts and arguments is considered "disruptive" and is threatened with banning. Dnm (not an admin) started threatening me with this very early on for arguing against him. A person that has facts on his side does not need to resort to threats.

5. The fact that inconvenient counter-arguments have been removed by admins altogether, so that they would not need to comment on them.

6. The fact that in this deletion articles Dnm lying his pants off just to create "arguments" for removal.

I'm on twitter – a lot. And there you'd get tarred and feathered for a) deviating from the truth b) trying to avoid responding to valid points. I'm used to argue using strictly facts and valid arguments (instad of relying on fallacies). There is an obvious discrepancy between the world of twitter and SvWiki, where threats are common, factual arguments are dismissed unless they don't come from people that has made a lot of contributions to SvWiki. This means some of you can get away with very sloppy arguments, which is especially problematic with things like politics.

So no. Plead your case with valid arguments, not moving goalposts, blocks, ad hominems etc. I respect an argument, I don't respect "don't argue against this or I'll block you". And yes that is apparently the way of SvWiki today – unfortunately. You really need to do something about it, because I see that you have fights within the "in-group" too.

Hmc1282171021 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please come back when you have more sources from news. Not only your own propaganda. Adville (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Were those 45 articles by independent media propaganda? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

We discussed this on svwp were everyone knows swedish. Your own Debate or opinion articles are not independent articles. I thought you understood that. Keep the discussion were I answer ed instead. Adville (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not answering the question. Are those 45 articles news articles or opinion pieces? I can give you an explicit example. Is this news or opinion: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/rolf-k-nilsson-lamnar-moderaterna Hmc1282171021 (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I wrote to you on bybrunnen. .. But you'll get an answer on this article. The party is mentioned... But how much info can we write about it from this article? That it exists? Noone said it did not exist. Anything about an externa analys of the party? Think by yourself. You are desperate.

I prefer to avoid getting blocked, which is what is the probable consequence of any discussion on SvWiki. I got blocked there for two weeks for simply editing in the sandbox for crissakes! Do you honestly expect anything good could come out of me responding to you there?

About the article, that was one out of 45, together they should be enough to verify rudimentary facts such as: when was it established, what is its politics, where does it have representatives etc. Pretending that you are unable to extract that information from these 45 articles is ludicrous. – And that I'm talking about all the 45 articles should have been clear from the start, instead you

a) claim the articles contain propaganda, then

b) they are opinion pieces, then finally, when you actually look at one of them,

c) you admit that it's a news article but it's "too little to write an wikipedia entry from".

You keep avoiding actually reading and trying to understand what I'm writing. Either you are truly unable to grasp what I'm saying, or you're deliberately trying to misinterpret things. If it's the former, I can try to formulate it even simpler. If it's the latter then well... Hmc1282171021 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read on svwp. .. Adville (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Which part? The part where you characterized my refutations of made-up claims as "desperate and tiring"? Or the part where you claimed that my answering questions and arguing the case on the talk part of MED_2014 was the same as "attacking" you? Or the part where you said "I'm taking a dump on your party". Or "you and your tail failed before"? Or where you exhorted me to "stop this attempt to wear you out". Interestingly I have not written or done anything on SvWiki for several months. Or do you consider the discussion here on EnWiki a way to "wear you out" on SvWiki? I really can't tell, honestly nothing you write makes much sense to me anymore. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. I said I do not care about your party, I just care the articles are neutral and are written with neutral sources... Adville (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Adville, I just noticed that SergeWoodzing has asked you several times to not post on his page again, and you have replied in a combative way "No, if you do wrong I write here", and "Saying 'go away' does not mean anything." I don't know the customs on Swedish wiki very well, but here it does mean something, see WP:NOBAN. Please don't post there again. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen: Does that mean never or just in this matter? Because user:SergeWoodzing is involved in a lot of things now (even the discussion about Swedish Wikipedia). Does that also mean that he can acuse me as he did on coi whithout me having a chanse to reply that he is wrong to call me biased? (I hope you check what I did reply to and why, also the old discussions). I also wonder if he by telling me to back off Will not harrasing me when I start to erase his COI Photo from articles and his biased edits about Swedish nobilities. He is well know to harrase users whom he disagree with and when they answer he says "go away, you are not Nice, dont write on my page" (as you can see he also said to user:Domdeparis just above my post) when he had accused me for things -lying about me to try to misscredit my opinions. Adville (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is you Always shall respect Other users, but if they are disrespectful against you and lying about you you have the right to answer back and demand an explanation. Not just a "go away that make s me tired as... you understand Adville (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have a disagreement and feel a need to respond to something the other user has said, there are surely other pages to do it on? You went to his page to complain about something he had said on the COI noticeboard, and by moving the disagreement to his own back yard, it became far more personal. Experience suggests that it would have been better to stay at COIN. On the public boards, such as also article talkpages, users are more likely to stick to the point at issue, and not veer off into general "and-another-thing-about-you-that-I-don't-like complaint. Also, we all tend to feel our own talkpage is our personal sphere; we don't want people to come there aggressively, or when they have been disinvited. Don't you feel the same? Please leave Serge alone on his own page when he asks you to. He shouldn't have to feel under attack there. Bishonen | talk 00:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

There are some difference between SvWP and EnWP on this. The user "own" the personal talkpage here in a way Swedish users do not. However, even if you should respect a users will, communication need to be enabled on the talkpage. When SW started to attack everyone (me, Adville and so on) answers must be allowed on the users talkpage and not at the same place as the debate of SW:s COI problem. It is common place for SW to attack and go snowflake generation at the same time. Adding to this, SW is often "Bad Faith" in person and sees enemies everywhere (even amongst those who support the same point of view) and act on that feeling without hesitation. So it becomes a problem if others are hindered to answer SW directly about this on the user talkpage because he feels hounded by it. Therefore i need to ask you, Bishonen if the rule you state above is absolut on EnWP? I do not know what Adville thinks (only he can answer that), but I would want to learn the culture over here ('cus I do edit here sometimes). Dnm (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not an absolute rule, Dnm. I linked to WP:NOBAN above for information, but I don't mind quoting it: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request, although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to." In other words, the guideline appeals to common sense, respect, and, as you say, culture. But if I'd realised my post to Adville would make you feel empowered to comprehensively attack Serge Woodzing's good faith, I would just as soon have stayed away. That's definitely not the culture over here, since you want to learn it. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

• Dnm how fortuitous that you are here also; that means I only have to type this once, especially if I also ping Domdeparis and Disembodied Soul: y'all better drop this. I have no problem with the article being nominated for deletion, in fact I think I pruned it and/or some related article a bit, and SergeWoodzing knows I take a hard line when it comes to sourcing and puffery--but what you all are doing to Serge is not OK: enough with the accusations, overt and covert, and don't let me see anyone OUT or threaten to OUT him. I also need you all to stop with the personal attacks. I am not going to tell you all that I know, since you all don't deserve it given your animosity and since I am under no obligation to tell you anything, but I will tell you that I have no concerns at all about SW. My apologies for sounding like an administrator, but that's what I am. If you have any more questions about the rules on en-wiki, I will be happy to explain; surely, since you all contribute to the sv-wiki, you understand a strict enforcement of rules. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: you didn't link the "outing" concept to our outing policy, and it doesn't look like Adville is familiar with the term, since he uses it in such a vague way, more to mean "somebody is accusing me of something": "And what a coincident, Drmies, that someone is outing me as only haunting him on enwp". Adville, to "out" or "doxx" means to "Post another editor's personal information.., unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth," etc., whether such information is accurate or not. My italics. Please see WP:OUTING. Attempting to identify SergeWoodzing as being Jacob Truedson Demitz, as Domdeparis, and NH have been doing most recently on WT:Articles for deletion/Jacob Truedson Demitz is attempted outing, not for the first time, and a couple of other users are cheerfully chiming in there with extra gossip and demeaning remarks: "tragic. No wonder he was permanently banned from Swedish Wikipedia". Stuff like that. The outing policy states that "attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block", and I for one intend to implement that policy next time it happens. Don't you agree, User:Drmies? Also, my patience for malicious gossip about users is running out. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC).

I know what outing means (but I agree I missused it here about me). I have not outed SW, as you can see on my edits, and my last edit said that clear that I do not think they are the same persons. Adville (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

B

Placa del Castell Benidorm

For the last time I have not attempted to out anyone. When I mentioned autobiographical input I was referring to the statement by the person claiming to be Demitz but I understand why you misunderstood me. Domdeparis (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping but I'd be very interested to know @Drmies: what you think I have done wrong here? I am not outing him I have been very very careful to avoid that. He has clearly been adding COI stuff for many years now and has only admitted to having a COI when I took it to COIN after long and totally pointless discussions. I was not the one who AfDed this article. I personally do not care who he is so long as he doesn't use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If this editor had been honest from the beginning all of this drama would have been avoided. So thanks for the lessons but I really don't feel concerned by them. I really don't know what you want me to drop but feel free to be clearer about it especially if as an administrator you think I am going against policy or guidelines. I admit to having been a little sarcastic at one point but that is all. Domdeparis (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks for days and days now like it's very important to take credit for the discovery of some major damage that the ol' SW is accused of having done, or intended to do, to English Wikipedia, though nothing like that actually exists. I guess it also looks like, then, that I'll just have to keep posting a link that was provided (for careful & conscientious users) already on October 4: perhaps the most ignored link in the history of Wikipedia. Must I keep adding it over and over and over and over and over as long as misleading wording like "only admitted to having a COI when I took it to COIN after long and totally pointless discussions." keeps being bantered about over and over and over and over and over? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have not written anything on his page after that, but I have told him on other pages to stop saying we are "haunting" him and all that. It is (no secret any more) he who has admitted to have COI in this marathon affair. We noticed it on svwp long ago, but there he never admitted it like here. I can not understand then how SergeWoodzing can call this a witch hunt on him, when it is clear that there are a lot of rinsing up needed to be done (see this example that I rinsed today - don't know why Lars Jacob is mentioned in that article. I do not even understand why he should be on a photo in that article (look also at the oter 4-5 examples I checked today in my history). When I take photos for Wikipedia I do everything to make them neutral, like on the picture to the right were I erased my children, but you might see their legs behind the fence). May I proceed to check and do the cleaning here, like I did today, without you saying I am personally attacking him?

The problem is that he has not been honest at all in this affair, only said we (and everyone trying to see what is going on) are haunting, to make it looks that we are the one doing wrong. With honest editors we would not have it like this. Adville (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And what a coincident,Drmies, that someone is outing me as only haunting him on enwp, when I according to the counter have 513 edits here, Dnm 748, Disembodied Soul 421 and the other three between 100-200 edits. The edits I have done recently was about this thing and the problems on svwp-article, but Please also look at all the other edits. Are we the problem or is it the COI, that is the question! Adville (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• The problem isn't the COI: that SW has a COI is obvious and acknowledged. Y'all's behavior is problematic. "Other edits" are irrelevant to me: I was looking at the AfD and the AfD talk page, where it seems like some people are having a good time using SW as a punching ball. SergeWoodzing, you would do well to stay out of this, on this talk page--in fact, the less you say the better it is for everyone. But that really goes for everyone, except for Bishonen of course, who always makes sense. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I have no problem with this as long as it applies to everyone. I for one are tired of SW calling me a POV-user, not neutral and other insults all the time (and i mean all the time!), and at the same time making it seem like he is the person under attack (even edits to articles are sometimes viewed as personal attacks). I have no reason to attack SW at all. I have no personal quarrels with the user, but everything is turned into something personal all the time. And i do not really understand what you want me to drop? I have not written anything to or spoken ill of SW this past days. And before the deletion-discussion i have not spoken to him either. Sometimes i have been reverted by SW and insulted at the same time by the user, but no more contact than that, really. Dnm (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The edits of this user have been considered remarkably politically slanted by lots of users at the project (svWP) where he (gender known) wields the most power. Even his talk page here tells another, less holier-than-thou story. His edit history is almost exclusively one of politics. My only reasonable theory as to why he dislikes me so much and has stalked me for years, is thet he's (according to himself) a leftisk politician and (and) has assumed (incorrectly) that I'm a dangerous political opponent, and (and) has been noticeably flustered when I have demanded political neutrality from everyone (everyone) in WP work. His political opponents are usually dealt with that way. It's a pretty horrifying misunderstanding, year after year after year, is far as I'm concerned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If you do not want to get attacked by others maybe you should stop attacking everyone else all the time. At SvWP i am quite highly regarded for my work with NPOV and sources. The ones who despise me are often blocked by the SvWP administrators for POV and breaches of etiquette protocols (this is the "lots of users" you refer to). This you know. You are now making a case against me by half-truths and insinuations with the aim of dishonoring me. I have never viewed you as my enemy, but you have allways treated me as one and therefore i have reacted to that. And this is what i mean Drmies. This happens all the time and for the most part without provocation (This time SW could argue he is acting on a provocation). Dnm (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

People who don't like you get blocked at Swedish Wikipedia. You said that, not I. As we say in English: word! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss the explanation why they are blocked and that it is not Dnm (not admin) blocking them? Adville (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: this talk page's user: "he has not been honest at all in this affair" is another rather serious personal attack - how much more are we going to have to stomach along those lines? As the butt of all this, I'm really sick to mine by now.

I recommend blocking. Enough is enough.

Furthermore, I didn't add that photo or that caption name to the graveyard photo, John Vandenberg did that years ago, and lots of neutral (e-hm, neutral) editors have looked at that since and found nothing wrong.

1982 Front Desk staff, partly in uniform

Same with the photo (with no names mentioned) that this user removed today from The Beverly Hills Hotel gallery - lots of exposure to neutral editors, no action taken before. Rare historical staff photo (try to find anything else like that, donated as a free image by anyone else!) A-OK with anybody else, deleted by this user as "promo". Promotion of what/whom? Uniforms? Hotel employees? Seating? 1980s mustaches? Neckties? Men-only reception staff with the exception of one woman (apparently hired by the non-noteworthy manager)? ~ Not too inspiring for people to free up their rare images for our use, huh?

Oh, and new action here, just because a photo of a street happened to have a certain unnamed person in it (the person without whose efforts - and e.g. trip to that town - there would be no rare and relevant free photos such as this in hundreds of articles).

Plus 2 rare photos of two dynastic heads, one now dead, of whom there are practically no free photos at all. And note: no edit or discussion about shortening/defluffing captions - the whole images had to go!

Such photos seem to have been appreciated and approved by Commons admin Jarekt and enWP user Nemo - both neutral (key word).

And now this user (who doesn't even seem to know what "outing" means?) is asking you for carte blanch Drmies to go on "rinsing" according to such objectives. All the while continuing, as I interpret it, despite your warning, with h outing attempts (whose "family"?).

Constructively neutral or heavily biased? Good work for Wikipedia or witch hunt? Disruptive or sincerely concerned? That's not for me to say, but I have every right to my opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As you can see here, not hiding it, I am checking your edits for COI (as you self wrote you have COI when it is about this person) just like user:Domdeparis started to do. I have removed some things earlier today (saying above see my history). Are my edits wrong? or did it improve Wikipedia (it is not about you and I am not saying you are Jacob, but you have COI there and tries to promo him and his theatre) Adville (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"you ... tries to promo him and his theatre" may be your opinion, but it is not a fact. Quoting our guideline on personal attacks: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I've made a few bad mistakes, but nobody has proven that in my good faith work I have "tried to promote" anyone or anything. There may have beem be suspicion, but there is no evidence. "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" - you see, since you have no rules like that at svWP you're not used to them. But you've been warned now several times, and by 2 admins. I have stated that, in my opinion, you are not being neutral in your discussions of me, my work and an article or two. As far as I know, that kind of a statement of a rather obvious fact (check your huge effort here all of a sudden!) is not a personal attack, at least I've never seen it called that. I've shown time and time again that what you've written about me and my work is not true. But I've never mada a serious personal attack like "he has not been honest at all in this affair". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy you discuss with me here were I am allowed to answer (because you have forbidden me to write on your page... but please feel free to write your concerns here, then we can come to an understanding!). You have after long time admitted your COI in this affair, but you did not do it easily, you always said "I did it in good faith" as above.. but you know very well that you are close to the subject and that being close and promoting him was COI. Did you or did you not being honest about your personal interst in Jacob? It is a fact that you have admitted COI after app. 10 years of editing here (and the block on svwp for COI, which we do not discuss here). You are also right somehow that I do not use to edit as much as I do now here on enwp (a few edits a month) - but I use to do some edits all the time and sometimes there are things doing so I have to answer or look at other things that are not neutral on enwp. Better fix it fast (and maybe come into a discussion with you or the svwp-article discussion which makes me write more than I thought. But this is not about me but about the articles that need to be checked after someone admits COI so they are neutral (and you have not only done COI-edits, you have med tons of good edits too lifting Wikipedia) Adville (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"You have after long time admitted your COI in this affair, but you did not do it easily" : not true.

"(and the block on svwp for COI, which we do not discuss here)" speaks for itself.

AAMOF (now that you mentoned it, again [and again and again and again and again]), so does the embarrassing item that you Swedes kept several hundred images in articles at svWP, which you all had complained about an awful lot as a major reason to block me there, but then kept almost all of them in place once you'd gotten rid of me.

Can't discuss anything with anyone under these less-than-real conditions. You should probably stop now. And respect what you've been told by others, if not by me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies:, @Bishonen:: I asked kindly some admin to make the discussion be about the article for deleting, and got this pretty bad and "try to stear up anger" answer against me. I do not want to answer him, because that is what he wants, but what should I do to make him stop doing like that? Adville (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't answer. Just don't answer. These are the kinds of things that will go away. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your behaviour with administational assistance

You should just reply to the questions John puts. He is an administrator, who has agreed to help us. Boeing720 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have answered several Times. Let HIM decide if he understands me. Not you. You are not my boss. Adville (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

But your replies were meant for me, were they not ? Boeing720 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The admin should know what we disagree with. The numbers we dont. Only the explanation. Thats why I answered like I dif. Then it is no need to discuss the numbers now and then. Only the explanation. Adville (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We have agreed to disagree, but I think we are obligated to be constructive. Could you possibly make a suggestion for the article lead ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I have said. Mention numbers. Dont explain like you do. It is already said the bot made most of the article... and therefor we do not need more explanation. Adville (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It sounds to me, like you are very tired. That's OK. But please improve your language tomorrow. (In Swedish if that helps)Boeing720 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, Boeing720. I understand your comment... but it is of another reason: I hate autocorrect on new cellphones. I have only had it for 1,5 week now and it is "learning" now. Thats why it sometimes comes capital letters too. I corrected the language now with the compueter´(in my above comment - I usualy do not correct after othres have answered). Hope you understand it better now. Adville (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my misconception, and that's indeed very understandable ! So when you are comfortable, with a real keyboard perhaps, without any extreme hurry, could you then either come up with a suggestion or see if you can present secondary sources, or anything that could help ? And by the way, there are no allegations involved. Administrators here are (in my opinion at least) not scary lording people. And I'm certainly not expecting any favors by asking him to give us some assistance. But we need to solve this matter. Boeing720 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but right now I have too much job to do (until Friday). A crasched computer with a lot of files neede for work (a funeral) on Friday. I will look at wiki during daytime (breaks), but have night work now to fix and repair.... ope you understand. Best Regards, Adville (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Just leave the lead free of primary sources until you are able to discuss properly. And you have no administator rights here, and even if you had, you could not lording like many of your mates do in Sweden. I'm Swedish citizen, yes. I'm born within Sweden's border (blue eyes, medium blod but thin hair etc) but I'm not particular Swedish at hart, but "en halvdansk skåning", as you "upplänningar" ("upplänning - uppåt landet ifrån") say about us. And for that I'm proud. But that is Nevertheless totally off-topic here and now. I have nothing against you, but you must understand that English Wiki is not a place for lording other contributors , here you are equal. No more, no less. Boeing720 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

First: Are you trying to be funny or just mocking me? You could at least do some research before you call me "Upplänning" and boast about your eyes and skåne. Read [[User:Adville|this page].

Second: Do not destroy an article just because you do not understand. I'm reverting your disruptive removal of information that is similar to the article English Wikipedia. Before you destroy this article more, remove the same from that article and check if that is ok. Adville (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Destroy ? Not understand ? It's you who don't understand NPOV balance nor the quotes Wikimedia. To reveal all facts is not to destroy. It's your lacking desire (so far) to be constructive, that fails. You should also read WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY Boeing720 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your were warned, not me... I know very well secondary sources, neutrality and statistics. By the way svwp are not autotranslating enwp. That is totaly wrong. Lsjbot made den articles according to sources. Se do not like translated articles because we want sources to check with so that misstakes from the Other language are not spread. Adville (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Warned ? By whom ? The article was protected. And not related to the issue. Read WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. Off this topic - the sources are translated and taken from this (mainly) and other Wikis. A bot cannot suddenly decide to create an article, use sources etc outside what's already been done elsewhereBoeing720 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting. That was a warning to you by an admin on your discussion.

Learn about bots before you write. It is code and translates according to an externa or more database. Not from enwp. That wouldn't work. Check the bot articles again. Adville (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Adville. This has not been well, in retrospect. I suggest that before continuing whatever you arrived here for, couldn't you first write some article or 'expand & improve' ?
Something that doesn't relate to whatever SeWz-trouble you have encountered elsewhere. Please ? Perhaps you could continue here instead ? I just think you have began in a ... well ...how to put it ... a bit 'negative' way. I honestly think you can do other things, 'positive' things, here. And after a while 'over here', then decide your future path. I wish no further quarrel with you. Boeing720 (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

If you look at my edits before you started with svwp and demitz you see my intentions are Good and that I did no wrong then and now. Maybe you should Think instead how you use sources and own opinion in your editing. Even at grisjakten were Im sure you are right but without sources it is your thinking. Adville (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that. (but I'm no supporter of personal vendettas.) Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adville. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Swedish matter

From https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Dan_Koehl#V%C3%A4lkommen_tillbaks I can see you feel the user (with 15 years longer experience than you have at SwWiki) is "långsint" (resentful) ? Could you please explain why you abused your administrative authority like that. Including "the celebrations of it all" which I showed at @Jimbo Wales: talk-page last autumn. Why did you feel that was a necessity , why the "funny jokes"-celebration. And what ever had this pioneer within Swedish Wiki done, in order to get a whole year blocking ? Please make an effort in order to explain your actions there. Boeing720 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

What? Didn't you understand last time I explained that, that no matter how long you have been editing on wiki you shall not call an admin mental sick with his name on facebook because you are angry. (And moving the post from "svenska wikipedia" to his own wall to keep it there). I think everyone agrees on that, but that is a matter for Swedish wikipedia and not the english. So if you want to interact in that do it on svwp. What I did now before the block was over was to tell him welcome back and also that he shall let that old story be (because he gave a wrong version ≤on why he was blocked on the link I gave on his talk page from the beginning of january). What do you mean with "abusing"? Noone else than you reacted, but not on svwp but here. Adville (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

To be a Wikipedia, certain common rules apply. Who has called whom "mental sick" , when and under what circumstances ? And what about proof ? IF true, perhaps someone called him something first ? And above it all - even IF true, does it really matter whether that Wikipedian is an admin or not ? OK to call a non-admin "mentally sick" !? You have revealed yourself ! Forgetting that this Wikipedia is not lorded by our admins, like at Swedish Wikipedia.

Your "welcoming back after one year" includes a whole bunch of embedded unkindness - quote "Eftersom du fortfarande verkar ha mycket ilska i dig för blockeringen och uppenbarligen inte vill förstå när du gör fel så ber jag dig att lämna den diskussionen därhän (om du väljer att skriva här) och ägna dig åt andra saker." or "Since you still seem to be very angry for the blocking and obviously do not want to understand when you're wrong, I ask you to leave that discussion there (if you choose to write here) and take care of other things." ... welcoming ??? Boeing720 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As you said. This is english speak in wikipedia and not Swedish. If you want to complain about anything I did on svwp do it there (I know you are blocked there, but if you want to interact on svwp you may ask to be unblocked). You self-published have said several times that enwp is on it own, and that is true for svwp too. If he think I did wrong he can take it to kaw himself on svwp. Adville (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And if you want more info about this please read your own talk page discussion because just some month ago you asked about this for the first time so you should know and not act like it is something new for you. Adville (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You have never given any real explanation, nor any proof. Boeing720 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

But I'm very sad to hear about user Obelix has passed away. He was among the few notable Wikipedians at SwWiki 2008-2010 who genuinely was nice. Boeing720 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I gave you the links so you self can look into that matter. It is easy when you know Swedish, as you do. It is also explaned in english on his svwp talk page just because he has been here som long and maybe other users would wonder. (I did not write the explanatuon nor was I alone to do the blocking, as you lnow. It was all the Swedish community on kaw... so stop doing this a thing between med and him. Actually I was the one who first unblocked him before he did more and I had to do the year block). If you really are interested look in the links provided previous time and read everything.

When I saw this now I wonder what is your problem, Boeing. You have read the page and vommented on it 9 january this year. Everything is written there. You say there it is unjust, and here tjat uou dont lnow why. Stop playing with me. Even pinging @Jimbo Wales:, as if it was something new. You know that user:Obelix took his life and just a month later does Dan call an admin mental ill. (The reason for the one year block). Please let this be now. It is one year ago, and that the user who do not want anyobe to mention his name,SW, is angry on svwp with his coi that made him banned (he did not admit it on svwp, but here a few month ago) is also something you do not have to bother me about, even if he too is writing on that link I noe gave you in the end. Let this now be in the history. Adville (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I had no knowledge whatsoever about Obelix' death prior to the day before yesterday. I find it to be very improper of you to spread gossip about the reasons for this tragic event. Boeing720 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me an answer (not just link to a 1000 line discussion). Has the user whom you blocked for a whole year called you - or anyone else "Mentally sick" or similar at SwWiki ? Please provide a link to that page, if it actually exists at all. Boeing720 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not know you forget so fast. That also explains why you started this discussion again. Last year in October was the first time you were sorry about Obelix death, when we discussed this last time (see this link where you wrote that. I can also understand why you tjen have no will to read all that thing in that link I gave you, even if it is written there all he did. (No links to facebook exist on the svenska wikipedia, because it was erased but he still has the post on facebook. Of course I will not link to it but I just checked and it is still there). Leave this now. No use digging in a tjing from January last year and you and the one I do not mention bwcause he does not want that are the only carying about it now. Not even dan is writing about it so much. Adville (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE, Adville - I haven't had any connection with SwWiki for seven years, by now. I had absolutely no knowledge of this tragic death of a still rather young man until this Tuesday. About the link you actually have provided - I didn't realise he was dead, as you wrote , I interpreted as "also has left SwWiki". OK "passed away" I ought to have noted, but this was briefly stated by you, and in connection with the other matter.

If I had realised (and read all your confusing mixture of subject), would my reply naturally not just had been "I can actually recall O. as one of the more fair persons at swviki, as of 2009-11.". Your announcement simply was this (incl. your spelling)

"Not my descision. I just pressed the button after the long discussion on KAW. That is how it works on svwp, discuss before you do something drastic, if it is needed. (You also have to know a friend of us had passed away just before that incident and he had had the kind of issues that was the beginning of this kaw-discussion. You better read your self, because it is not nessesary to write it here again)"

Do you really believe my reply

"I can actually recall O. as one of the more fair persons at swviki, as of 2009-11. Nevertheless - a long discussion followed by a block, is at least not something administrators do here...." - would have been that brief and unpassioned, if I truly had understood it's actual significance ? (Not that you were unclear in that tiny part - "passed away" is normally fully sufficient. But this was in the middle of the discussion of the other matter. (Which to me , and at that time, was the issue). Only you were fully aware of this sad fact, as of then. I don't blame you for having been unclear , but better had been to make this announcement aside of the issue we were discussing

And still - spreading gossip about the reason to his death is distasteful, in my opinion. It's of very little relevance , as I see it, whether the gossip happens to be true or not. But OK, I can't entirely rule out that I should have noticed your brief mention as a death, not a leave from SwWiki. For that am I sorry. But I honestly didn't comprehend it then. Boeing720 (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If possible, could you be so very kind, Adville, to also provide a link to where the one-year-long blocked user, calls you (or anyone else) "mentally sick" ? Boeing720 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No. I will nof vourse not provide the link. Then I would hang him out again. You have three options.

1. Believe me for what happened because you can see a lot of others also reacted.
2. Read the links I provided. Dont be lazy. Then you will also see he admitts he wrote things, and you understand why the block too.
3. check by yourself for the facebook post that is not deleted and believe.

But as you said:you have had no inbolvement in svwp for 7 years, so why is tjis so important for you now? If uou hate svwp stop looking there. Adville (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

First, thanks for realising I actually was unaware of the tragic matter, despite the fact you actually were clear enough (though brief) about O's tragic death. Boeing720 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

But then. What has this Facebook to do with Wikipedia ? I'm asking for a link to where the user called you or anyone else "Mental sick". All links here goes solely to discussions we have had. I can admit to have read the sad news "lazy". But you have not this far provided any link in which the user either admits to have called any Wikipedian any such thing. Nor where , when and the circumstances he should have done so. Neither I have seen any link to "a lot of others also reacted". If you can't provide the "Mental sick"-link or even "the admitting to have done so", I have to presume there was no valid reason for the one year long blocking. This has roots in the way I was treated at SwWiki (not by you, but by a few others) around 2008-10 or 11. For various subjective reasons like "being too fluffy", "not keeping my mouth shut" , "having written too much about Copenhagen history" and similar matters. Whilst at this Wiki, I have never been threatened to be blocked even for a single "cooling off day".

It was so very symptomatic for SwWiki (then at least), if not being among the top core accepted ones. Anyone becomes blocked for subjective reasons for two weeks, six weeks, unknown time and infinite (banned forever) by lording admins - and still as of a year ago, a pioneer who has been blocked a whole year there. So I strongly doubt anything has changed from that point of view.

Although I have been involved in bold matters here, edits as well as at talk-pages, including disagreeing with far senior Wikipedians and admins, at not so few occasions. Without even a tiny threat from the any admin here. This difference is extreme, and I truly wish someone neutral could have a deeper look into Swedish Wikipedia and what I like to call "admins who are lording it". And although you were not present (not notably, anyway) during that time there, in my eayes, sadly you too appear to have become like those I refer to

Final attempt. Prove to me, you are not like that. Has user DK called you or anyone else "Mental sick" (mentalsjuk) ever at SwWiki ? And a link to that - not a lot of other links. Please. Boeing720 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not me. No. No link because the reason it is deleted is to not hang out that person. I know you understand that. By Linkin I hang out the person. I told you were to look and then it is up to you, and it doesnt matter what you try to say about svwp. You do not like it. Leave it aloe. Easy. Adville (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Then I simply must conclude, the one year blocking (and celebrations of it) simply came down to subjective reasons and nothing else. Last autumn I was informed that the issue you refer to was about the subject of mental illness, not about improper labels of admins or others. Which now stands to far better reason compared to your version. Given the large number of other links you have provided, but the lack of this particular and imperative one. It's so sad, I think. Boeing720 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It is sad when people not involved takes the bulliers part because the bully is old... over and out. That is a Swedish thing. Not yours here. You may think what you want. Adville (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi and thanks for your input regarding the block issue on Swedish Wikipedia.

I have an issue here on English wp that you might be able to help with as a contributor here who obviously can understand both languages and both sets of policies and guidelines. There's a contributor (on both Wikipedias I see) who has declared I am sorry, but I will continue to try to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. There is still such a thing as an error i language, no matter how modern we might want to be...  I have corrected hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors since I began editing Wikipedia... This was in response to a move request which was declined, and seemed to me to have absolutely no basis in our guidelines here, and more important, there seemed no willingness to abide by these guidelines.

It's the no matter how far they have spread and hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors that concern me. We here use English as attested in reliable sources... if these errors have spread to common English usage, then they are correct here, and to have someone "fixing" them according to the rules of Swedish is a nuisance. Most of them probably have had no review, they just fell through the cracks, and quite possibly have not improved English Wikipedia, just the opposite.

The discussion became quite heated, and I have not raised it as a behavioural issue but felt it was approaching that. Any help to resolve this would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me in this matter, Andrewa. I'm sorry for the late reply. I was working abroad this week, and had to take care of the family when home. Actually I saw that discussion you are talkong about during the week (I edit a lot when on the hotels), but did not notice you where the same person as I was writing with on the other discussion. The reason I noticed the discussion is that I have been involved with that user several times before on both svwp and enwp, where some of my investigations about pov and writing own sources, publish on his own fundation to use here made him blocked on svwp. It was the same problems here on enwp, see the conflicts I've been involved in on my user page here. His style of debate is "noone shall mention my username on discussion pages, but I can do it with them" (thsts why I do not mention it now), everyone who is not accepting his point of view (or have opposed before) is mentioned as an enemy and not a "neutral user" (which he think I am not because I found out all those things on svwp), he knows where to scream someone is harrashing him and uses it often to frighten others to be quiet and not bother him. Those things are problematic, and that is what happened once again.

When it is about the issue this time I remember when I checked his contributions here (last year. Changed jobb and have had too much with that so I only, almost, wrote on svwp this year) I sae a lot of edit comments "swenglish". I did not check that very much, however I think most of those edits are accurate and well done. It is small grammar corrections that we Swedish sometimes do because of a different word order than english in plane text. But what I think and what is true is two different things, so when working in Finland next week I will check more in this. Best regards, Adville (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have met very similar behaviour once before, and it did eventually get User:Viktor van Niekerk indefed, but not before a great deal of unpleasantry both on and off Wikipedia (I am still banned from a related email group as a result, and the fact that they are banned from it too is no great consolation). That was possibly a trickier problem, as Viktor is truly an internationally recognised expert on the subject of our dispute.

It is possible, even likely, that the hundreds if not thousands of corrections were not similar to this RM request at all, despite the explicit attempt to imply that they were. That is probably just bluster IMO, and I think you are confirming that. But there are things to watch here obviously. Again, Viktor managed to also insult another world expert on the subject of our dispute who had become a contributor and who agreed with me (or rather, I agreed with them). But they have not edited since that dispute, so we went from having possibly the two foremost experts in the field as contributors to now having neither, and through no fault of that other expert! Similar damage is possible here. After many years as an auditor I have a thick skin, but not everyone does. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Now, Andrewa, I have checked the users "swenglish"-comments made from the end of 2017 until now. As you see in the headline here under he is not so interested in me looking into this. That is because he often tries to change the cause of discussion to be about the user finding an error, instead of focusing on the error that should be corrected (or possible error). As I wrote earlier he thinks I am haunting him of that reason (I found the self-made sourcing, I was involved in the COI-discussion on svwp (he did not admit it there, but when threatened here with a block he did) and the deleting of non-relevant COI-articles and pictures. As you see I am focusing on the facts, not person, like in the following swenglish-example:

Here I reacted on an edit I was uncertain on. As you see I tries to be humble and says he knows better English than me. I know I pinged him, because I wanted him to see the discussion. Not pinging and I could have been forced to wait weeks to get an answer. The answer I got was, according to me, horrible, no matter what we have discussed before (and he was wrong) you do not answer like that to a user. What then happened is that he started a new headline answering to my question, which I think is a strange behaviour - but I did not reply on the horrible answer. Please read yourself the next headline to see his explanation. I think Dom from Paris gave an exellent explanation. The same kind of error-correction is made here, and I have not discussed anything with him about it. When in this kind of discussions with him you refrain from correcting or asking whats right to avoid the sure-comming argue... but for me the correct facts and neutral writing is what makes me edit. Hope this is ok. I saw you pinged another user too about this issue. Best regards, Adville (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My impression is also that his English is very good, and he considers it native or better. He ranks himself as professional for Swedish and native for English, but we do not generally use professional for English competency here at en, so he has given himself top grades for both. I cannot comment on his Swedish, but IMO his English is not native speaker standard despite his many years of English immersion.

But of course English Wikipedia exists for all English speakers, not just native speakers. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from the user you are discussing here

It's common courtesy to notify a user when he/she is being discussed this extensively, though I must say I'd rather have been without seeing some of this bad-mouthing, still going on (Who knew?) from 2 years ago. Anywhere else I'm being discussed behind my back?

Three comments (besides that):

1. When asking someone constructively ("help to resolve ...") to comment on another user, I recommend asking someone who can be trusted, i.e. considered neutral by anyone fair, not someone who has indulged for years in very negative comments about the user on 4 Wikimedia projects and even has been warned about that by administrators. (Some of it was so bad that the Jacob Truedson Demitz deletion discussion eventually was blanked as a courtesy - maybe administrators have access to it?)
2. I do not (no not) object to being mentioned by name when that is neccessary and constructive, and I have never (never) said I objected to that. What I object to is habitual and unneccessary personalization of article talk, habits which are against guideline as well as being (almost always) destructive to the talk and discouraging to the subject-interested user.
3. Silly me! I thought we were OK with this for weeks now, but (thin-skinned or not) to me it looks like one administrator at English Wikipedia might be out to get me after all, or at least to contuniue to ventilate alleged damage I have done. If so and if there actually is any fear that I've done considerable damage, I suggest not this kind of action but that a formal complaint be lodged against me asap so we can have it out re: my "bluster" about correcting lots and lots of Swenglish since 2006. People who are qualified to reasonably assess that alleged/feared/discussed/argued/investigated damage, i.e. basically what is and is not such hard-to-comprehend Swenglish as it would benefit English Wikipeia to correct, could then get involved.

I recommended User:Andrewa to contact User:Bishonen as a fair administrator on English Wikipedia who knows Swedish. Very sad about this choice instead. It brought back nothing less than horryfing memories that have caused me to lose a lot of sleep since september of 2016. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I would much prefer that this be discussed on your user talk page. But you have explicitly asked me not to do so. And of course you are welcome to raise any behavioural issue on mine.

I have contacted u:Bishonen as recommended. I won't ping them here as you already have. Andrewa (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And they have declined to become involved at this stage. Andrewa (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You linked to a dif where all I did was recommended you "deal with them [any errors of mine] as per standard procedure." If you think "standard procedure" is to write to a user where, betwixt h and me, there has been long drawn-out controversy (to put it diplomatically & blame no one here), and that it is "standard prodecure" to do that without my even knowing about your discussing me with such a person, then you and I are miles apart as to what "standard procedure" is.

Ergo, what you mean by "explicitly" is not a connotation I am aware of, for that word.

Your repetitious very wordy blanket accusations, with no relevant evidence relating to me, are not welcome on my talk page.

"Standard procedure", as far as I see it, is that we all help correct and/or improve each other's language, wherever we feel it's needed & we feel such correction is beneficial to the project. If someone else doesn't agree, we then fix it (that RM was quickly resolved, so why is this still being harped on?) or report the actual content problem to DR or worse if any user can be proven to habitually makes such non-benefial edits.

I don't know who or what you mean by writing here and there about a mysterious "real stinker" you have to deal with, but if you mean my work, that approach too seems dubious to me as "standard procedure", as is your writing here and there, vaguely I might add, about your "general suspicions".

If my work requires "further dicussion" (other than repetitious accusations and somewhat threatening, discouraging wordings, with no evidence) that should be done as per "standard procedure" where as many fair, neutral users who know Swedish and English well, may opine. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue is one of English usage, not of Swedish. The basic error of the RM was to invoke Swedish grammar. We neither follow nor avoid Swedish-like constructions. However, speakers of Swedish who have studied English as a second language do tend to do this, just as I in common with all native English speakers who speak some French tend to favour French constructions that differ from English. They naturally seem more "French" to us, so we use them more confidently. There is nothing wrong with you rephrasing good English and replacing it with equally good English if by doing so it avoids what you see as "Swenglish" . But it seems rather pointless, and there are obvious dangers.

It seems rather pointless, and there are obvious dangers, if someone reprases good English and replaces it with equally good English if by doing so it avoids what the user sees as language influenced by a foreign language. That reprimand, in summary, is what I take away from all this. While respecting your opinion, it looks like I'll never really understand it, or why you'd write something like that to me or anyone else. I was willing to try. To understand. Try quite hard, as a matter of fact, since you've been an administrator on English Wikipedia for so long. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to reprimand you, I am trying in my turn to understand and help Adville to do so too. And I think we are making progress, despite your lack of cooperation... the proper place for this discussion is of course your own user talk page, but you requested that I not post further there on this matter. And that is not a reprimand either, it is an explanation. My conclusions so far are that, as a learner of English, you were like most language learners given rules, and you are seeking to folow those here, perhaps consciously and perhaps not and probably a bit of both. (The LAMP method, which I have used but not for French, specifically avoids this.) Do you think this is possible? Andrewa (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you are correct here, Andrewa. When you understand english outside the box, then you see correct english that not always follow the grammer book, but might be dialektally correct. A Swedish example: manage: by the book "klara av det" two dialects: "klara av'et" "klara av'att" (last is my dialect). The thig is that as a none native you maybe doesn't have to try to correct the so called swenglish, because it could be correct and you might change it o an error, or just more formal english which is not making it easier to read. It is not nessesary to do the change, but if you anyway have to correct other things it is fine and doesn't matter... (I hope that all involved understand that, and tries to not think this is reprimanding and feels bad, but it is a discussion about the best for the articles. Not all critizism is "personal", but most of it when working with Wikipedia is "factual" or "about the texts. That has allways been my way of working here - the neutrality of Wikipedia - and not to argue with any user, which the users doesn't always understand but tries to make it personal to scare the opponent away). For me it is fine to have this discussion here. Br Adville (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It is for the reprimanded to decide whether or not he/she feels reprimanded. It is for the bullied to decide whether or not he/she feels bullied. It is for the offended to decide whether or not he/she feels offended. It is for the stalked and hounded to decide whether or not he/she feels stalked and hounded. Et cetera.

English is my first language which I have taught off-and-on since 1962 (see Bishonen) and written very well-paid works in. Swedish is my second language which I learned when I was in my mid-teens. Of languages which I do not attempt to write well, but can speak and read fluently, German is my third langage, French is my fourth and Spanish is my fifth. I also read Dutch, Danish, Norwegian and Italian. I see no point in my continuing to try to defend myself over and over in this forum, nor in this being discussed on my talk, where all I have asked for is that standard procedure be followed when I make mistakes.

I makew a lot of typos due to ever worsemning eyesight and other motor difficultoies.

If you people can find something better to do than to have me on permanent trial & discuss me for textdecimeter after texdecimeter, that would be great, as it would not to see me followed around to be corrected now, whenever I make an edit.

If you'd like me to quit, keep this up and I promise you I will. I find no satisfaction whatsoever in any of this now. Today I skipped about 3/4 of the things on my watchlist because of interest steadily slipping away.

If I'm a big problem, report me for a thorough investigation, please! Otherwise, please stop!. Over and out. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Any behavioral issues that you wish to raise should be first discussed on the user talk page of the user in question. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, the normal place to raise and discuss such issues is your user talk page. Are you happy to do that now (you weren't before), and if not, where would you like this discussion to take place? See wp:DR of course. I do not wish to escalate this more than absolutely necessary, but I think it does require further discussion.

Your bluster was the claim that you had corrected hundreds if not thousands of similar errors to the one you sought to correct here.

I'm not out to get you. It seems doubtful that you have done considerable damage by these edits. But I assume that at least some of them exist, and I think it is reasonable that they be scrutinised. Andrewa (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not really sure if I can add anything useful to this conversation but as I was pinged I had a quick look through the comments and thought just as a reminder the courtesy blanking of the deletion discussion is done to avoid harm to a person or company I believe this is usually the subject of the discussion and not an editor who participated. The discussion is available for all to see without any kind of special rights (admin or otherwise) by looking at the page's history as per WP:CBLANK. I think that if there had been any real problems with any of the comments the they would have been oversighted. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa, to see his corrections of swenglish just open his uset contributions. Show 500 edits and search sweng. There you can see I'm sure it is that he ment in first place, and how I looked. Some swenglish corrections are in the edit before it too. With my "history" with SW hope you trust me in this: I am 100% sure he writes better English than me. (His problem here was instead his agressive aproach when not winning the battle, but that is another issue...) Br Adville (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I did try that, and formed the opinion that most of the edits tagged as Swenglish were changing perfectly good English to rephrased but still acceptable English. And this is of course the pattern of the RM that started this for me.

He certainly considers himself native speaker standard (or better) of English and this is part of the problem, see here for more on this. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for not answering for a while. Was working and after that writing in another matter to help a user. When I was reading his changes I often thought "hmm, what was wrong there? But I am not too fluently in English and the new version seems good too", making me think that I might be worse than I am. (But still I think he is better than me) I have seen what you describe here and in the link many times with friends learning Swedish. They often use "written language" when they speak, and very formal too, which makes others who listen to react. It is not wrong, but it sounds strange, but they might also use wrong word (like my childrens English teacher in a school in Sweden, after we moved home from the US: "go to your benches", and my son asked at home "isn't it ' go to your desks'?" bänk in Swedish has two different meanings: desk and bench).

But here I do not think it is the swenglish that is the issue, but the reaction when asked why a change was done, and I saw you sort of thought that kind of reaction might be in the Swedish culture. That is not true, the Swedes are not straight forward like the Danish people (I had a danish boss ;-) ) but more "affraid of conflicts" and tries to solve everything with no argues (this does of course not aply on everyone, but on an average). Adville (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

While I don't entirely disagree in theory, from a practical point of view I see no point in pursuing the issue of reaction. This could be raised as a behavioural issue, but I advise against that at this stage. If and when they choose to escalate it as such (and they have certainly hinted that they think my behavior is below par) then we must deal with that. But my agenda here is not justice, nor even building a community. It is purely building an encyclopedia. And so is theirs I think. They have been distracted into quibbling over English phrases that they think (probably quite wrongly) that they are competent to "correct", and this is annoying and a pity, and wastes some of our time too, but mainly theirs. And life goes on. Andrewa (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Un bleu crayon

If you give a native French speaker a red pencil when they have asked for a coloured pencil and they think it's obvious that they want it to colour the sky, they may well exclaim Un bleu crayon! to indicate your mistake (the bold indicates stress). But a speaker of English with French as a second language (such as myself, six years at high school and one at University during which time I spent some months in France) will almost always say Un crayon bleu! instead. They may even try to correct the native French speaker!

Why? Because, even if we know that the first construction, fronting the adjective for emphasis, is perfectly correct, it just doesn't sound French to our ears. There are three main reasons for this, but is everyone with me so far, and do you see why it might be relevant to the issues at hand? Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This was a great example. I see the point! Adville (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Um I am not sure I follow, I've been living in France for nigh on 25 years and I'm pretty sure that a native French speaker would say "mais non, le bleu" but not use the noun. Couleurs will almost always come after the noun but as you say in French there is no hard and fast "rule" that places the adjective before or after the substansive it is sometimes a question of the way it sounds when spoken or to add emphasis. Sometimes changing the place of the adjective changes the sense between figurative and literal but not always uniformly. "Un grand homme" = a great man "un homme grand" = a tall man but "un petit homme" = a small man and "un homme petit" = a comtemptible man. But if you add something else, then the adjective grand can change its sense regardless of where it comes, eg "Un homme grand dans ses intentions" the grand then becomes great because it describes another of his qualities and if there is another adjective that describes his body then "Un grand homme brun" becomes a tall dark man rather than a great man who is dark. It's complicated stuff and even after 25 years of almost exclusively speaking French I make some glaring mistakes sometimes! Dom from Paris (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "mais non, le bleu" is more probable. But that misses the point. The point is the English speaker's reactions, not the French speaker's. The construction I have suggested is quite possible, and which would be used depends on many things. No matter how unlikely it is, all I am saying is that it is possible. And so we can look at the other's reactions. Which is the point. Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrews: Yep totally agree with you we should not presume that what the other is saying is wrong. I looked at some of the correcting of Swenglish and some of it is actually worse English than the corrected version or at least that is my opinion. I try not to make too many grammatical changes myself as I am aware that despite what used to be an excellent level of English my way of writing can sometimes be tainted by my daily use of French over the past 25 years and this may also be the case of other users who communicate daily in languages other than their mother tongue. A little humility can go a long way. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Over and out

Thanks to all who have contributed here. It is difficult but I have found it helpful.

As promised, some comments here on SergeWoodzing's most recent post:

It is for the reprimanded to decide whether or not he/she feels reprimanded. It is for the bullied to decide whether or not he/she feels bullied. It is for the offended to decide whether or not he/she feels offended. It is for the stalked and hounded to decide whether or not he/she feels stalked and hounded. Et cetera. Englis h is my first language which I have taught off-and-on since 1962 (see Bishonen) and written very well-paid works in. Swedish is my second language which I learned when I was in my mid-teens.'

I am understanding more and more. I think I got the issues right but not the causes. What we have here is someone highly skilled in teaching elementary English, who is assuming that this makes them competent in assessing and correcting English at all levels. As we saw in the RM, this is not so... Wikipedia uses native English as attested in reliable secondary sources, a far more sophisticated approach.

From the RM I am sorry, but I will continue to try to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. There is still such a thing as an error i language, no matter how modern we might want to be... [1]. The problem is, these are not necessarily errors at all as English Wikipedia sees them. But they may be as an elementary English grammar book sees them. There is a big difference.

In that very same post, he claims that the current title will set a bad example and sabotage the hard work of English teachers. Now this all fits neatly into place, does it not?

Lastly for now I would like to say a word about being reprimanded and bullied. I have myself felt bullied by the refusal to discuss, the implications that my behavior is unworthy of an admin, by several things. I have not sought to reprimand for the errors of English, made in good faith. I have for the refusal to accept and discuss criticism, also made in good faith, and I think this reprimand is warranted.

Years ago we had a policy of no personal attacks, in fact it is still official policy and it is well worth reading. And I still attempt to follow the letter of it. If my good-faith criticism is seen as bullying, that may not be entirely my fault. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. As I said above I avoid doing too many grammatical corrections as what I feel is "good" English is not necessarily the only correct way to write English and even as an English native we can make technical mistakes. A good example is "over and out" which SW used above and is the title of this paragraph. Anyone who has served in the military will know that "over" means I have finished speaking and I am waiting for a reply and "out" means I have finished speaking and I am not expecting a reply and am ending the exchange and any new exchange will need to be initiated correctly with "hello X this is Y over" followed by the reply "hello Y this is X send over". So "over and out" is incorrect but because we have heard it so many times in films and on the telly we think it is a correct usage and could end up correcting an appropriate use of "out" by adding "over and" before. So as I said above humility is a great thing to have when editing as what we think is correct may not be or what we think is incorrect may not be. Dom out. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Over and out has a certain logic, the "over" meaning end of this transmission as always, the "out" adding that the frequency is released, and was I think part of the American Radio Relay League standard at one stage; It was certainly used by early Australian amateur radio operators. So it didn't originate in the movies like "I do" is rumoured to have done. It has fallen from favour, it was not part of Australian military voice procedures by the time I learned them (1960s), if it ever was, and I am guessing from your comments that France and presumably NATO no longer use it, if they ever did. Interesting? Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

British army not French and according to my father who was a radio operator in the late 50s in Aden in the same regiment it was definitely over or out but never bother because they are mutually exclusive. Maybe some Ham radio operators combined the 2 sometimes. Anyway just saying what we think is right sometimes isn't. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree and that is of course the whole point here.

But this is a fascinating aside. I learned (and instructed) Australian army voice procedure in the mid 1960s, and Australia was in Vietnam with the Americans of course, and it was pre-digital so there was a strong assumption that the enemy heard every transmission (our net diagrams all included an enemy station listening) and so voice procedure was strictly standardised to avoid them identifying individual operators (according to the teaching material we used, anyway). But the Americans didn't follow it at all closely... "Mickeymouse" instead of "Mike" was the most famous example. But I first heard "over and out" (generally preceded by a brief signal strength and intelligibility report) as the standard end of contact on The Terrible Ten TV series, late 1950s, in which "walkie talkie" radios (battery valve based) and the "Ten Town" base radio station were a plot element in almost every episode. And my father, a radio amateur since the 1920s, seemed quite comfortable with it. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right it is interesting. I've been out of the army since the early 90s and it's odd how some stuff never leaves your memory. Radio procedures, foot drill, small arms use, army numbers. We had it drummed into us and then we did the drumming in ourselves, all of it seemed tedious at the time sometimes but the whole idea was for things to become totally automatic so that even under extreme stress you did things right. I've been in a few stressful situations since, fires, car accidents, first aid situations, violence etc and it's odd how your training kicks in even decades after leaving. Anyway enough swinging the lantern from me! Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering for a while. Buzy with working. Very interesting discussion you have. This is one of the wonderfull things that makes me love Wikipedia: When you are openhearted and willing to learn new things and listen to others you really learn a lot. Thanks. Adville (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Adville. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

≠== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==

Hello, Adville. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

High15

High15 and their song No drama has entered Spotify 200 at place 45. And Zeana has entered at 12.BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Great. Easier to get a keep. I know you are creating a lot of articles now about the artists at Melodifestivalen. On svwp there are no problems, but here they do not undersrand what it is. So two advices:

1. Create them in your sandbox, but keep them there until a day before the competition, so you can source them with new sources.

2. We have a melodifestival-photographer taking a lot of photos, as you saw I inserted on Anis. The photos starts to be added to Commons on thursday night I think. Add a photo before you publish the article to make it more professional. This to avoid tiresome deletediscussions. Best regards Adville (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Translation of Nattvardskalken

I get two different translations of this: scarf or calf. It seems like this would actually be a tray or platter. Thanks Aurornisxui (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the correct article: Chalice, {{|Aurornisxui}}. Br Adville (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Aurornisxui. Corrected miss in ping. Br Adville (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

AdvilleThank you!!Aurornisxui (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Done

I have created an article about Fredrik Holmlund. I left the notable parts of the article, that are fully covered by sources. I hope you will improve it further. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, BabbaQ. I have been working in Norrland some days, therefor the late reply. I will see if I can fix more. Fredrik was impressed. Br Adville (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with editing

Thank you so much for noticing my new article Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno and saying that I did a great job on it. Is there any chance that you could hep me with editing? I have a lot to do and could really use some help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I can always try :-) just tell me what, and if I have time I will. I mostly edit on Swedish, where I am an admin and needs to check that, but sometimes I am also here. Best regards Adville (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you expand this article Ananie Nkurunziza as well. Once it has been expanded I will add it to the List of people who disappeared. Thank you for responding to my message as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I will look into that also. I could not find any e-mail to you on your page, Davidgoodheart. Just a small private thing I wanted to tell you off wiki.

This article, Operation Colombo maybe is something you have interest in while writing about disappeared people. 119 of them 1975, mostly MIRistas. The article in Swedish needs to be improved to. Best regards Adville (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thx a lot, BabbaQ. Needed. As you have seen I have not been active at all on enwp lately. I have had som family problems to take care of since August... but thanks to the great scientific research during the 20th century we are here now and in the beginning of January the last one will be "shot"... and then a looong waiting for some PETing in the end of February to see if all is good. Then I will celebrate for real with my son!!! (Everything seems good so far, and we will enjoy some skiing next weekend to relax). Will se hen I come back here on enwp for a longer session, but on svwp I am active - my escape from reality :-) I hope you really enjoy your holidays, remember to tell everyone you love how much they mean for you. It is worth saying it often. Believe me! Br Adville (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Omg, such sad news. But still happy that your loved one will get the help he needs. Luckily we live in Sweden, with good medical care that does not cost a fortune. Enjoy your skiing-trip and try to stay positive. Stay strong!--BabbaQ (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will. Adville (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

BabbaQ, positive news. Two weeks ago my son got the most positive news he could get. No more treatment. Only three month controlls for 5 years. A big reliefe. His immune system was also back to normal... (but he has to be extra carefull in these times. Br Adville (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Great news! So happy for you and your son. BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hur

Hur länkar språk på sin användarsida? Dencoolast33 (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dencoolast33, titta längst ner på min svenska användarsida. Där finns länkar till 2 språk. Adville (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Förlåt, men jag kan inte hitta Dencoolast33 (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dencoolast33, This is to get a link to your spanish page: es:Usuario:Adville Change to sv:användare:Adville för att komma till den svenska... Adville (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Tack så mycket för hjälpen! Dencoolast33 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)