Swedenborg

So. I am a big fan of Wikipedia since many years and now I am on my first small steps to contribute in content side. I am Swedish and will do most activities there but also try here. I have already noticed a trend in Wiki that there is a group of admin who are totally devoted to deleting.. its a good thing that quality is keept, but it is also a great danger that some people who got admin status are misusing their rights. Lets keep Wiki on the right trac for development, inclusivity and positivism.. A bad article can be made better, a short longer and peoples engagement is the real core of Wiki. --Swedenborg 08:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you mean me, I'm not even an admin.  RasputinAXP  c 13:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So how come that you are deleting everywhere? --Swedenborg 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page

You are destroying the soul of Wikipedia

It is clear that your goal is to delete as much as you can but think again are you the solution or the problem here? If I understand correctly the idea of Wiki there should be an openmind and articles that are not clear nonsens should have a chance to develop.

--Swedenborg 06:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First, please use my Talk page to ask me questions or tell me I'm destroying the very soul of Wikipedia. I am not deleting anything. I'm an admin yet. I don't have those tools. You're mistaking my tagging them as candidates for speedy deletion as me actually deleting them. The problem is that you're not presenting anything new regarding "Global_Resource_Bank_Initiative" that wasn't covered in the valid AfD last October. The text is fundamentally identical and as such is open to being deleted under CSD G4.

If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd be more than happy to help you develop articles that are verifiable using reliable sources. Let me know on my Talk page.  RasputinAXP  c 22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks the same becouse its reflecting the realiity and the truth... so how should I do if I would like to write an article about an important fact like The GRB?

well interesting, this one left Wikipedia? I guess its not so funny in the long run to delete after all, well I will not miss him (or her?)--Swedenborg 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page "Happy delete finger?"

Hi, there is a strong tendence to critic and take away articles and information on Wiki right now... Lets try to work together and develop Wikipedia and have a positive approach to build information. --Swedenborg 09:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please under stand that the article EcoTheology was empty and contained no information, it normally is a good idea to have an idea on the information to be included before starting a page so the information can meet the criteria of cited, verifiable and reliable sources. Posting articles with no content just on the basis of they could be a interesting project is not the way to build a informative Wikipedia, it is the basis of building a Wikipedia with a huge number of articles containing no information. Also I am not clear by what you mean that there is a "strong tendance to critic and take away articles and information", if you mean that article/information that do not meet the guide lines/criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia or a clear consensus has been reached trough a AfD are deleted, then sorry I don't agree with you. I am happy to work with other editors to build and expand wikipeadia, as long as that dose not preclude consensuses of other editors or ignore guide lines/criteria. --blue520 11:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree,no doubt.. ´but here I put up and was filling with info.. you proposed speedy deleting after 3 minutes :-0 If tha main atmosphare would be in positive and co-creation and open maners I would prefere a contribution och question or request for expanding... bur I understand that you get stats and medals and everything if you put for speede or deletions, then contributing nothing yourself... that is a huge misuse of the core idea with Wiki and will in the end finsish this great project.... just think befor delete --Swedenborg 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Swedenborg. How is Sweden these days? I was there couple of months ago, on a 6 month research fellowship at Lund University. I really like the winter. The city of Lund had snow for more than 2 months. Which part of Sweden you are from ? --- Faisal 17:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Faisal! Well Sweden is great! but a bit cold these days, this morning I woke up at 06.00 and it is around 0 Celcius, brrr.... I am from Swedish alps area Jämtland and have moved home 3 years ago after many years in Stockholm area. Swedenborg was a great great grandfathers cusin and I am writing a book about him (been writing for 3 years now). Where are you from? --Swedenborg 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am from Pakistan and was in Sweden for 6 months research. I have all the good things to say about Swedish people. They are very helpful and cooperative people. I wish if I could do my PhD from Sweden because is a neutral country. Hence for a Muslim like me, it is a safer place to study then USA or rest of Europe. However, I have got scholarship for Germany instead. I hope to stay in Germany for next 4 years and complete my PhD from there now. Good luck for your book. --- Faisal 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am not able to save that article. I really believe that they should had given you some grace period to improve it. Wikipedia is a place where majority stand. The fact which I do not like myself. They will delete the article if the vote for deletion are more than (or around) 75%. The comments does not matter to them. I also do not like wikipedia and I might be banned soon. But still I would like to contribute and make a difference as long as I can (or they permit). --- Faisal 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Global Reserve Bank

Hi, Swedenborg. I've taken a look at the article in question, which is a stub. Having no previous knowledge of the Bank, I really don't know how relevant the theme is. But one step at a time: another user has nominated the article for deletion on the basis that it is original research and a linkspam. Reviewing the history, I see that the entry that used to be at the article namespace was deleted because it was a redirect to a user subpage on the topic (which still exists). The first thing that you need to do now is get the article to survive the nomination for deletion. If the community decides in favor of deletion, it will not be possible to keep it from being deleted. The best way to do that is to prove that the reasons claimed to justify deletion are wrong: to prove that it is not original research, name your sources at the article's entry for deletion. You can also name sources that will establish that the topic is relevant and merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Our deletion policy says that if the article provides sufficient context to show that the topic is worthy and that it can be expanded, it should not be deleted. So you can post at the page explaining your plan to expand the article and improve its overall quality. It is always important to keep your cool and be civil in all your remarks. If you explain things to satisfaction, there is no reason to believe that others will vote for the article's deletion. If you have any more questions, or if something is not yet clear, please let me know. Regards, Redux 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Redux, Thanks for your answer, great! I will follow your advice, there is a Science report from 1974 that is the base of GRB and I will put a reference to it here and there is a lot of Sources no problem, will put it there too.--Swedenborg 07:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The deletion process works by consensus, and there's no minimal suffrage (it is not a vote). But there is a time factor, and once that has elapsed, an admin can close the procedure and assess what the consensus was. Probably, the admin closing the procedure deemed that a sufficient number of people had already participated, and if the consensus s/he assessed was to delete, then the article in question gets deleted. Depending on the circumstances, maybe you can still take the case to Requests for Undeletion (deletion review process), but before entering the article for consideration, please read the explanations at the page. Read also our Undeletion policy before deciding on this action. Redux 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, grow up. You couldn't prove your claims, and banging on about irrelevancies in an attempt to distract from that simple fact didn't work. If you want to achieve your political ends, you'll have to do it without the free PR/bandwagon effect you were hoping to wring from Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 21:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Calton, please be civil. You have been told this many times ok? TruthCrusader 07:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I've been told by a trolling and sporadic editor with a reading comprehension problem that telling the truth -- at least any truth that gets bad or worthless articles deleted -- is uncivil. Odd how you ignored Swedenborg's semi-coherent and paranoid insults, ennit? --Calton | Talk 08:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Calton I belive you need to visit a psychiatrist or at least attand a anger managment cource, You showed no wish to explane what is wrong with the GRB article and showed just very bad behavour and manners, hope never to have anything to do with you in the future. --Swedenborg 06:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And you need a reading-comprehension course, since I explained in detail what was wrong with the article -- and what was wrong with your off-kilter badgering of anyone who dared stand in the way of your promotional campaign. My explanation was certainly compelling enough to convince the closing admin, but if you've got a different opinion, take a shot at DRV -- where it will no doubt be shot down AGAIN.

Interesting that you not only knows all the trouth, have the best reading and writing skills in the world (mabe even in swedish or is intelligence only connected to english?), but also can read the future... --Swedenborg 06:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

...hope never to have anything to do with you in the future Good. Don't let the doorknob bang you on the ass on the way out. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well your comments say everything I rest my case... --Swedenborg 08:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusionist Organizing

Hi Glad to see another passionate inclusionist! I can't even bear to write for Wikipedia anymore because so much of what I've written has been deleted. Would you be interested in shifting from writing to helping me perusing AfD for worthy articles under attack? It's a big job and I don't want to work alone.

BTW, your remarks on the GBR AfD page are not civil and probably losing you points with those who disagree with you. Is your second to last edit supposed to be "gays" or "guys"? Very offensive and I think you should change it. More mild manners will help keep you from making enemies - or least it won't hurt. --Ephilei 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi I am glad to... yes I will help when I get some time, please advice how to get involved. Yes you have a point about civil tone, I will be better, just get so frustrating, and the Delete comments are not civilized or contributing mostely, just copy and past a lot of "rap" and wikislang and abv.. but ofcource we can better...

Since I am Swedish speaking english fluently but writing is not so good... I meant guys (even if I dont think that Gays should be a insult :-) --Swedenborg 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Reserve Bank

Swedenborg, I understand you're upset, but there's a right way and a wrong way to go about doing things. Spamming peoples' talk pages and attacking people by telling them "better contribute" is positively ridiculous. Perhaps you'd like to contribute in a more constructive way, by helping articles read Featured status, but somehow I doubt you'll step up to the plate and take a swing at actively contributing to areas beyond your pet project.

I think you've completely missed what we've all been trying to tell you each time the GRB comes up for deletion: there are no verifiable sources about anything you're putting up there. It's not personal, and you shouldn't take it as such.  RasputinAXP  c 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rasputin, well my goal is to help Wikipedia to become even better then it is, I am a huge fan and user since many years. The GRB article however had verifible sources already for 5 years while it was published, it needed to be imporoved no dobt, but deleted? My work to get a article about GRB is far from over and I will try again with more and better verifible sources and with more support and following the wiki Policies. Your tone (for example your comments on my talk is arrogant and uncivil and I have been adviced to report to administrators, but I will not do this at this time atleast) The tone and commets for this and many other deleting projekt have had the same bad manners and attacking the content not ths form or structure or Wikipolicy formats and that is a bit frustrating, so I am sorry if I got a bit out of order and I am learing all the time becoming better I belive. However I also belive that we might have the same goal to contribute in the end and we are both working pro bono for no sallery right so there is some kind of idealist in us both, so I hope tha we could cooperate in the futer instead of this conterproductive discussions so far. I also am very negative to the subculture of Deletionist it makes no sens to have a approach to delete stuff that you just dont like or understand... hope tat this form of vandalism will be handled and dissaper on Wiki. --Swedenborg 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. On raw numbers, as you asked, there were 12-5, or about 71% to delete the page. The other thing is that the arguments brought up in some of the keep "recommendations/votes" said "nothing wrong" with the article, which was rebutted, augmenting the case for deletion even further.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi yourself, Well you are counting "Delete asp" comment without dubt? And there should be good arguments for deleting before deleting as I understand it (not oposite), for me still there was no arguments that explane why it should be deleted, until I get some clear answers and understandable arguments why an article about GRB, Arthur Shaw and John Pozzi can not be kept on Wikipedia I will do what I can to get it back or rewrite it, ofcource next time I will bring the support needed for defending a "deletionist" attack... --Swedenborg 06:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will help you

Hi. I have followed your efforts on behalf of the entry for the Global Reserve Bank. I think its was a mistake to delete the article and, after some digging, I have uncovered what I feel is enough evidence to support its un-deletion. Please contact me via email on my talk page and we can discuss it. If we re-write the article properly, I am very confident it will be un-deleted. Also, if any user makes ANY uncivil comments on your talk page, please report them to an admin. TruthCrusader 08:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, lets organize another try --Swedenborg 06:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Calton is going to delete anything no matter what. He refuses to admit when he is wrong and he never apologizes for when he gets his facts mixed up. Get used to it. TruthCrusader 08:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your questions

Well, a good place to ask for help on researching a topic would be Wikipedia:Reference desk. People there especialize in helping research content. If you need help with Wikipedia functioning, then Wikipedia:Help desk is the place to ask for technical help. If people are causing you trouble, you can request assistence at the Administrators' Noticeboard. We also have a dispute resolution process to end feuds over, well, anything, including content. Does that help? Redux 08:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets try :-) --Swedenborg 08:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

PS, Got this comment and I am afraid that this is a fact... Ds

---

Calton is going to delete anything no matter what. He refuses to admit when he is wrong and he never apologizes for when he gets his facts mixed up. Get used to it. TruthCrusader 08:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Nearly Headless Nick 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is totally silly, but what to do when you know that the link to GRB belongs very, very much in this article, I have been working with ecological economics for 18 years and have strong arguments for this.--Swedenborg 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, somehow, you have failed to provide a single argument, opting for borderline incoherent rants about "deletionists".

Yet again I ask, as you have been asked CONSTANTLY before, where is the tiniest shred of evidence that this is a reliable source? Where, again, is the tiniest evidence that this exists in the world and is not just one guy's website?

This is spam. Its intent is not provide information, but to promote one guy's idea for an organization, an organization that has shown no sign of having any real-world impact or even existing outside a website.

So put up or shut up. Provide evidence for what you claim and it goes in. Fail, and it goes out. Handwaving and bluster are not evidence. --Calton | Talk 02:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your attacks on Calton

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

(I'm referring to this edit, which includes a personal attack in the edit summary.)

RandomP 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha ha... I guess that one choose what to see, you think that Calton is cool and never has been uncivil and have freqvent attacks all over the place on a very personal level? I am the bad one here right? :-) Well thank you for your advice, I will be more cool.--Swedenborg 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to the Village Pump and comment on my proposal to make disemvowelling a violation of Wiki policy. I think you might find it...interesting. TruthCrusader 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump?--Swedenborg 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The above user is correct. Statements like this are personal attacks, and Carlton's behavior does not excuse them. I will warn Carlton as well, but if you do not calm down, your behavior will be considered no different from his. Additionally, it is my opinion that he is correct about those links; I see no reason for them to be there. --InShaneee 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have been cool with only a few frustrated comments and I am sorry about them and appologize. About the external links I am interested in what way you belive that they are not relevant in a Wikipedia article about Ecological Economis? Did you read the article and did you read the link pages, did you check the Ecological Economics portal and what knowledge do you have in this subject? The formal criteria is already accepted by several people some are adminitrators. I would like to have a contructive and enlightend discussion about this and if I am conviced I will agree that GRB links do not belong in this article.--Swedenborg 15:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to have a discussion about their inclusion, then please do so. But do it on the article talk page, and do NOT continuously revert. --InShaneee 15:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried many, many times but got no respons from Calton and after checking out a bit I understod that I am not alone with this problem with the user: Calton, Thanks any way. --Swedenborg 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop making blatantly and verifiably false statements like the above, as they're easily checked. To repeat what I've told you, numerous times, you have to provide the slightest shred of proof that the link comes within shouting distance of the external links policy. You've been asked, numerous times over the last year at least in three separate AfDs -- and reiterated recently by myself -- to come up with the slightest evidence from some sort -- ANY SORT -- of reliable source that this so-called bank even EXISTS outside of John Pozzi's head. --Calton | Talk 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to file an RFC against Calton for this. That will be the only way he will stop. he doesn't respect anyone but himself so you need to force his hand by having an admin admonish him. TruthCrusader 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Empty talk coming from you, especially given your track record. BTW, how's that Heller Dynasty research you promised going for you? Oh, wait, it was a HOAX.

@Swedenborg I can attest that C guy didn't change a single spot like leopard after 11 years. He continues to insult or spread aspersions against other editors. Clear signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE radiates from the jerk but worst, he has a cabal who'll suppress anything he don't like so I've to post here for sake for preservation. C and his gangs are bane to 1st amendment and it has to be stopped at any cost. Safe money on C's being kicked out for good in the future. 113.210.203.5 (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Swedenborg Furthermore I googled C's background and he was a military brat of US air force servicemen but that doesn't excuse his behavior on Wikipedia. There are aspergic users who actually did far more contributive work than C despite their condition. If you want me to name two things that'll really stop him in his track I'll say "court's injunction" and "community ban". 113.210.203.5 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful of frivolous vandalism accusations and the 3RR rule

This is in reference to your edit summaries at [1], [2], [3], etc. Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're absolutely sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"). Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." Another point: it is obvious from Talk:Ecological economics that 213.67.58.xx is you, so be careful of violating the WP:3RR rule. I understand that it's possible to get logged out accidentally, but please do try to always edit logged in in a potential WP:3RR situation, as IP editing could look deceptive under those circumstances. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I can asure you that I always log in when editing, however it sometime have happend that I have not and working with computers and sequrity for 20 years, I am very well aware that it is possible to indentify by ip-adress, I did not try to be deceptive that is a total wrong and disparaging accusation. Question: Is accusation of spamlink not a threat to wikipedia, is a person who clame that he is fighting fundamentalists him self becoming a fundmanentalistic and notorious deletionist with a foul and agressive language not a threat to wikipedia, I have noted several users that left wikipedia after beeing attackt by him, and I am one of them who strongly are thinking of leaving if carracters like him are the model for what wikipedia stands for? I have not breaked the 3RR rule but if he deletes the external links (that I and several others belive is highly valid links in this article) he is breaking it. I do not know who you are or your relation to Calton but from your statement it is obvious that you have made a personal judgement of who is right and who is using non civil and nonrespect language creating bad climate on the wiki and for sure make constructive discussion more difficult here.--Swedenborg 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I do not belive that you can find one more user on whole wikipedia that have had any problems with me, and I have only problem with Calton so what does that say about state of this situation? --Swedenborg 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[Shrug.] You really shouldn't talk like that to passing strangers. I'm speaking to you as an experienced user. But since that didn't seem to cut much ice: I'm also an admin, and I'm hereby formally warning you to desist with the personal attacks or you may be blocked from editing. Specifically, stop falsely accusing Calton of vandalism. Please take a good look at the relevant policy pages that I have linked you to. As for finding users on wikipedia that have had a problem with your editing, I only have to lift my eyes slightly on this very page to see two respected admins warning you to stop making personal attacks. They seem to have a bit of a problem with your style. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

:-0 --Swedenborg 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ecological economics

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Ecological economics. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Calton! --Swedenborg 06:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget to warn Calton that his practice of disemvowelling is against Wikipedia policy and he could be banned for it. TruthCrusader 07:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, who could warn Calton? This is really getting strange, he is the one deleting links to sometging he probably not even read, or this article... and he has been using a terrible tone and bad language all the time? I am sorry that I could not kept my comments in a lower key, but how do you talk to someone that obviously have no knowledge at all in this field and that just seams to get his kicks from giving insulting comments all over the place, I hoped to have nothing to do with him or his kind but ending up with spending more time to react to his nonsens then in bed with my wife :-0 maybe I should just give up Wikipedia like several have before? [4]

--Swedenborg 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Calton has issues, my best advice is to file an RFC against him. Find an admin to help you with this. Its really the only way to draw attention to his attitude and deletionist fetish. TruthCrusader 07:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me to file an RFC against Calton? Check out this--Swedenborg 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Block warning

Crossposted from Talk:Ecological economics . Hi, Swedenborg. I see Calton links to your call for meatpuppets at your blog. Here is Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppets:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less.

If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

And here's the call you issued for other people to come insert the link you want in the article:

About Wikipedia, could somebody else then me ad that link, I have some issues with the "Deletionists" that deleted the original article about GRB that was put on Wikipedia by onknown for many years (and it was good) and now I met some recistance to put link to GRB on Ecological Economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics (click on discussion and history pages to check my efford to get the link to GRB here..) article (witch I was a part to write like the Eco Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_Theology article (the Swedish one is very much apriciated but in that english will take some more tome to get the right people to support).

I will instruct you how to do but they can identify the editor by IP-adress and mine is abit to hot right now.

Assuming good faith, as far as I possibly can (for I must admit to being taken aback by such cynicism), I'm going to assume, this time, that you didn't know the policy, and let you off with a stern warning. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia we're writing, not a mouthpiece for your views. Don't do it again or you will face a lengthy block. I for one will regard any future addition of that particular link as simple vandalism, revert it promptly, and, depending on circumstances, consider blocking the person who adds it. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

Well you are Admin and you say that you assume good faith, but from your earlier comments it does not feel like this, have you anything to comment about Calton?? Have you asked him to be more Civil or respect the Wiki Policy about letting Stubs and article develop and that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia?

In your warning you read my blog like the Devil read the Bible, and are not citing or understand that citat as what it is: The comment that you citing was reffering to on person who whanted to become a Wikipedian and me beeing harrased by Calton can not do any work now without attacks:

My blog. "for your information: Mohammad Yunus speaks about women in this 1997 interview. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s400630.htm

I found the interview linked to Yunus's wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Yunus

I would like to put a www.grb.net link on Yunus's wiki page: Maybe under References or External links at the bottom of the page.

"Godspeed the Global Reserve Bank." - Mohammad Yunus (click, go to [www.grb.net]) I've got this quote in writing.

What do you think? Also I need help with the edit. I don't understand Wiki's editing system too well." --Swedenborg 09:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, Well you are right, I am a newcomer or novis in Wikipedia and I probably will not become anything else, how do you all get the time to spend on Wiki?

But I am not new on Internet or with computers or Blogs, infact I put the link to mine in this discussion (or it feels more like stalking from Calton) on purpose and am very aware that what I write there is connected to my ID on wiki, I there for strongly did not put that statement for meatpuppet purpose or with hidden purposes.

Could you help me to get a proper view on tha core of this, is it or not right to give readers about ecological economy information about the work and ideas of Global Reserve Banks Ecological E-Credits? --Swedenborg 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN, you need to file a Request for Arbitration against Calton. I told you this before, and I am telling you it again. Its the ONLY way you can stop his harrassment of you.TruthCrusader 05:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(Swedenborg, could you please avoid posting in the middle of other people's messages? Divorcing their words from their signatures makes it very hard for readers to follow the dialogue. I've restored the integrity of my own post above.) "I there for strongly did not put that statement for meatpuppet purpose"--What..? Please don't tell me black is white, it makes my head hurt. To say " About Wikipedia, could somebody else then me ad that link" is the very definition of the crudest and frankest kind of meatpuppetry. You don't seem to understand what the word "meatpuppet" means. I don't blame you, it's a piece of Wikipedia jargon, but then that is the reason I linked the word to its definiton, as well as quoting the definition itself, in my previous message. Please read it, already. If I were you I'd stop claiming that you didn't do what you obviously did, it's not making a very good impression. As for me reminding Calton of "Civility", I'm sorry, I agree Calton is forthright, but I'd be more likely to thank him for his work to keep single-issue POV-pushers from forcing their views into an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. If Calton was as rude as you it might be a different matter, but he certinly isn't that. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

Well then its proved! You are not objective and your critic is not correct: for example:

Did you read the whole mail conversation? "could somebody else then me ad that link" refers to an answer earlier in a totally different place and are made becouse I can not put even an article or a link anyware now when Calton is stalking and harrassing me! (not even in Swedish part of Wikipedia)

No I do not belive that Wikipedia need the kind of behavore that Calton stands for, it should be open, free and invite people to contribute, to act in a self apointed Wiki-police/Seqretservice is only bad for the future of Wikipedia, I agree that we need to keep a standard and that pure nonsens and spam needs to be controlled, but running around and sweepclean like this is close to vandalism and does not belong in Wikipedia.

And yes, again I do not belive that I am guilty of Meatpuppetry or any of the accusation that you and Calton put on me for a while, why? Becouse I have never even for one second tryed ty chet, lie or decite and if anyone with a bit of neutrality (you for example?) could try to see the whole context, so in this time to: That statement cut from its context is not showing the truth, PLease Read The Whole Conversation and then comeback and tell me it is Meatpuppetry??? By the way, Yes I do not understand or like the Wikipedia jargon or any other becouse it is created for hiding and excluding, nothing for me...--Swedenborg 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Campaigns Wikia

I've noticed you've had problems with getting stuff into wikipedia. I generally applaud the idea of the GRB, however, as others have pointed out wikipedia is basically for well established organisations and not for new ideas, however noble. Rather than spend a lot of time trying to get your ideas in here you might want to check out the Campaigns Wikia. This is a new wiki created by Jimbo Wales specifically for activist and campaigning. You may find that wiki more responsive to your efforts. --Salix alba (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Salix alba, Thanks for your note, yes I understand that it could be the best, I also had a look at Citizendum maybe better? --Swedenborg 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Village pump

Hi, I'm not sure where you meant to as this question, but you put it on the talk page of the Village pump: that is, on a page for discussing the Village pump (things like whether we need to change how we archive the pump page). Needless to say, it was totally off topic. If you still have a question, you might try another venue. However, it looks from the discussions above that you already have several experienced Wikipedians talking to you. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks: positively last warning

Calton is a robust contributor, and I'm not going to take issue with a bit of a tone on your part, but this is ridiculous, especially coming from somebody who has been warned about making personal attacks so many times as you have. This is your positively last warning: don't make another personal attack or I will block you. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

Well you are ridiculous, in fact I suspect that you are Calton, please block me, I dont care.... --Swedenborg 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

block notice

Hello, I've blocked you for 24 hours for these [5], [6]. DVD+ R/W 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well go and take a shit . I really dont care you are just embarissing your self!!! I will ofcource have admin group to have a look at your activities, you are just not objective and proWiki in your behavoure... --Swedenborg 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You totally suck!

Hi,

Let me clearyfy something before my exit of this shitwhole!

Dear bishonen ( and I wonder how pretty you really are?) you pretend that you are a resonsible admin? and where is your responsabily? wikipedia is built on its users and the way we are treated and find a place in the community, let me just say that Calton have been a very nasty and not friendly contact in the cyberworld and that if he/she is the raw model I just dont what to be a part of it, and youre protective approch is ununderstandible, what is this, why is it so important to protect this uncivil and totally sociopatic caracter? --Swedenborg 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is wikipedia gooing?

I have just been attackted by a fan of Calton, where is law and order in this place?--Swedenborg 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Block notice II

Hi, Swedenborg. DRW probably doesn't know your whole back story of disruptive editing and meatpuppetry, so he only gave you a nice little 24-hour block. I've extended it to one week. That should give you a helping hand out of "this shithole," since you seem to need one. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but no amount of explanation of the purpose of Wikipedia has made any impression on you, so perhaps it was unavoidable. You can still edit this talkpage, but please note that if you keep cussing and carrying on on it, it will be protected so you won't be able to edit it. Förresten undrar jag en sak. Varför tror du jag är från Tokyo... ? Bishonen | talk 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

I protest!

Well now I experienced my first Cyber facist, and it looks like its a Swede??? Where should I protest? --Swedenborg 01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Protest against my being Swedish? What have you got against Swedes? Anyway, it's your turn to answer a question: why did you keep saying I'm from Tokyo? Why is it that you lose interest in your accusations when they turn out to be wrong, and just storm on to the next insult, hmm? Come on, now. Why do you make up stuff at random? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm interested. Come on Calton, I'll see you in Shibuya over a beer tonight... no! I didn't say that! Bishonen | talk 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

I gave up on editing Wikipedia but never on the idea of Wikipedia!

$Insertformulahere$

So as you can see, I have made no contributoin for several years now becouse of my experience of what I later understood is called the game of WikiWar, young stupid people finding plessure in deleting and harrasing together with like minders, as a substitute for a real life, misssing the hole point of cooperation and developing knowlegde together.... But hopfully it will get better, and Wikipedia is still and is getting more and more interesting as source of knowledge...

--Swedenborg (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)