User talk:Niklas R

Welcome!

Hello, Niklas R, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Moxy (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been on svwp for a few years so i think i've got the basics pinned down. --Niklas R^Talk_page 20:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have any questions pleases feel free to ask me :-) again welcome!!Moxy (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Herbal smokeless tobacco Dominant parallel Augmented seventh chord William Powell (author) Sam440ep Gerb (pyrotechnic) Thelesperma Slash chord Mediant Swedish Match Tonic parallel Supertonic ACube Systems Srl Kodiak tobacco Submediant JAmiga Sam460ex Tiffin School Boat Club Subdominant parallel

Cleanup Qualia Nitrosamine Root (chord) Merge Augmented triad Model–View–Controller Snus portioner Add Sources Counter parallel Pitch (music) Tonicization Wikify Langendorff Heart Bergmann MG15 nA Gun Real income Expand Timberwolf (web browser) Index of United States–related articles Tobacco products

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Ovos moles Henry Hall (bandleader) Viennese trichord Triad (music) Circle progression Diatone Reggae Reggae Sauce Myhill's property Mario Kart 3DS Simultaneity (music) Deep scale property Polychord Entry Sequenced Data Set Bisector (music) Levi Garrett HD 108874 b Tobacco-specific nitrosamines Specific interval Common tone

Cleanup Aeolian mode Augmented sixth chord Accidental (music) Merge Acoustic scale Monkfish Authentic mode Add Sources Snuff Diatonic genus Health effects of tobacco Wikify Conclusion (music) Information Technology Agreement Indian Pharmacopoeia Expand 1551 in music Bannered routes of U.S. Route 40 2005 Edmonton Eskimos season

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for being in touch. I've been in contact with a user called RPSM. He tells me he's indefinitely blocked on Swedish Wikipedia and seems resigned to the block not being overturned. I noticed this because I found him on en: asking for people to make edits on your pages, which struck me as interesting - he clearly respects the block and isn't socking, which at least is one thing in his favour. I think he feels rather hard done by, which may be unfair... may not be. He seems quite argumentative, which may be why he's been blocked, but somewhat expert in certain fields. I wonder if you'd mind taking another look at his case? If there has been problematic behaviour, I don't mind trying to mediate to get him to understand what is not acceptable. At worst, I could fail. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I guessed from reading your talk page that RPSM was the issue. So i've had a bit of time to review his/her history on svwp already, but there's a lot of text to read... I can give you a brief sketch now though. Yes, RPSM is indefinitely blocked on svwp. Swedish user sv:Användare:Grillo was the admin responsible for the block. The reason, as stated by Grillo on RPSM:s talk page, was POV-pushing and breach of etiquette.

RPSM made his/her first edit on svwp 27 november 2007 kl. 10.57. Three days later the first message on his/her talk page appeared, asking him/her to behave better in discussions, and to perhaps edit articles where there is no conflict of interest. For the next three to four years RPSM edits articles connected to judaism and with regular intervals the user is drawn into conflicts with other users. Several Admins try to mediate on RPSM:s talk page and in other fora, to little or no avail. The main problems seem to be that RPSM tends to accuse other users of antisemitism when they don't agree with his/her views on subjects connected to judaism and that he/she is POV-pushing in articles connected to judaism, as i understand it mainly by cherry-picking sources. (I will need som more time to review the edits and the sources though, and i'm by no means an expert in the field.) These problems are aggravated by RPSM:s lack of language skills combined with a habit of writing very long posts in discussions, rarely staying on topic but interpolated with quotes from him/herself, other users, sources, talk pages on enwp, and "notes to self" about this or that. Even thogh several users point out to RPSM that this is quite unreadable and try to explain how talk pages work, this behavior continues right up to the block (and the request to unblock).

As i see it there are a few things to say in RPSM:s favor too. As you point out the doesn't seem to be any sockpuppetry, and surely the lack of etiquette was aggravated by language problems. However, the request to unblock that was posted ten days after the block seems to show that RPSM hasn't understood the reason for the block – the behavior that's been pointed out to him/her for almost four years – and i fear that this user will go back to his/her previous behaviour if unblocked. If you can get some of these points through to the user, there might be cause to reconsider. Niklas R^Talk_page 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. OK, we might have something we can work with here. I think the issues seem to be as follows:

1. COI
2. Accusing others of antisemitism
3. Long walls of text on talk pages that go offtopic, making discussion difficult
4. Lack of language skills in Swedish

Taking those in turn: COI - what's RPSM's COI? Has s/he authored a book or some such, that they're trying to push? Antisemitism - please will you confirm that the accusations are baseless. If so, that's an easy one, I hope. Walls of text - also, fairly easy to deal with Language skills - I'd guess that like on en: if this was the only problem, there'd be no problem.

Please could you also translate the blocking reason and the unblock request and post it here for me.

Thanks for getting back: optimistic of a good result. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick reservation, i might have mistranslated COI, what i meant was that RPSM seems to be pushing a certain line regarding how antisemitism influences laws on for example religious slaughter, and tries to downplay other elements in the debate on such topics (eg animal protection). This often results in accusations against other users who try to bring these aspects of the issue into the articles, like "you only bring this up because of the unconsious antisemitic sentiments imprinted in you by your culture" (not an actual quote!). I'll be back later with translations. Niklas R^Talk_page 11:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your other points:

Antisemitism - I can't confirm that these accusations missed the mark every time (i don't know if youv'e got the expression "Even a blind chicken may find a grain" in english), though i know they did so on several (most) occations.

Walls of text - I would have thought so too... but yes, not a big problem

Language skills - you sum it up quite nicely

Here's the translation of the blocking reason:

"Hello RPSM, you have now, since my first comment on this page in november 2007, been ruminating on ["ältat" i can't really find a good translation for this word] the same question over and over again without showing any signs of self-awareness or trust in other users. Instead you repeatedly accuse others of racism and similar things. This is, as i am sure you understand, a totally untenable situation. You are obviously incredably persistant and have a lot of time to engage in these topics, and it's a shame that you haven't put this time into more constuctive endeavours than chasing windmills ["jaga väderkvarnar" i don't know if this is idiomatic in english, it's from Don Quixote] in a small number of articles, with a total lack of interest in listening to other opinions. Other users can't be expected to review your edits for ever. Thus, i'm blocking you from further editing on Wikipedia. Because you obviously hav a POV-agenda [link to sv:WP:NPOV] in your work here and because you don't respect other users [link to sv:WP:Etikett]. /Grillo 4 april 2011 kl. 22.30 (CEST)"

I'll ask Grillo to have a look and see if i got the gist right. I'll be back with the unblock request. Niklas R^Talk_page 12:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd also like you to ask the blocking admin (Grillo) if s/he minds if we try to find a way for RPSM to return. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Grillo to have a look at the translation above, if he does he'll se your question here too. Niklas R^Talk_page 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Heres the request to unblock. It was a bit tricky to translate and you might want to ask RPSM to check for errors and misconceptions.

"It was the following post that derailed the discussion:

Actually, regardless, relying on myself as a person, but I can also turn to everyone here who edits. We are biological beings, and like other creatures, we can feel stress, anxiety, pain, etc.. There is really nothing that separates us from other animals. If anyone got the idea that hanging me upside down or otherwise depriving me of my freedom, starting to cut my throat and letting me bleed to death while in a fixed position, I would feel myself extremely vulnerable, defenseless, feel pain, become stressed and so forth, while life literally drains out of me. Then in any case a bolt in my head would be much more humane. Is there any independent (of especially religion) research that shows that Jewish ritual slaughter does not create unnecessary suffering for animals while they bleed to death? dnm (d | b) March 30, 2011, at. 20:54 (CEST) [the translation of this quote is based on the one RPSM made on your talk page with a few minor differences]

Because similar stories have been sent by mail to those who has publicly spoken in favor of jewish slaughter in Sweden, worded like: "How would you like to die like... etc" as anonymous letters, and i have seen one such [letter] reported to the police. The one i saw was admittedly rougher and more brutal and was reported to the police. The core question is if you can justify eating animals, especially mammals. You are not supposed to discuss the major philosophical questions on discusson pages. Because dnm requested research i brought forth the statement of professor Sahlstedt from 1925. It's basic knowledge on this subject.

As the article stands, it's incorrect. There is nothing in jewish sources about having to cut carotid arteries, and another error that's found it's way in to the veterinary litterature is that the animal has to bleed out in another manner in jewish slaughter than in other forms of slaughter. There are big misconceptions on a basic level, wich are disseminated and wich are untrue. RPSM 14 april 2011 kl. 15.39 (CEST)"

Niklas R^Talk_page 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Grillo isn't very keen on letting RPSM back in. He also points out that respecting a block should be the natural way to react to a block and therefore it isn't necessarily something that should be rewarded. Niklas R^Talk_page 15:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking for RPSM to be "rewarded", to me, it's evidence that he's not a lost cause. I'm just trying to get the best for the project... a contributor contributing.

Is it RPSM's first block? I got the impression it is. Seems very odd for a first block of a long-term editor (nearly four years!) to be indefinite. If he's an egregiously bad contributor, why isn't his history littered with blocks? If this was a community ban, fine, but this seems to be a single admin's action. If a content contributor on en: was indef blocked for a first block after 3+ years of contributing, there'd be more than just eyebrows raised. Even if they were a POV warrior. POV warriors aren't the end of the world, and dialogue is better than ensuring that the opposite POV prevails. --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by "community ban", could you explain? As far as i can tell, this is RPSM:s first block, yes. However, the user got several warnings during those 3+ years. As i wrote earlier several admins had been involved in trying to straighten things out and were aware of the block. Another admin, sv:Användare:Tegel answered the request to unblock and presumably reviewed the case before doing so. Personally i think a block was long overdue, probably because most users saw great potential in RPSM despite the problems. When the user finally was blocked there was no more patience left in the community, and nobody seems to have objected to it. Niklas R^Talk_page 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, i almost forgot! I found that a block of RPSM was requested by sv:Användare:Sjö on the swedish equivalent of Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, this is what prompted the block by Grillo. See sv:Wikipedia:Begäran_om_åtgärder/Arkiv/2011-04#4_april. Do you want me to translate the request too? Niklas R^Talk_page 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, sorry Niklas for writing here, but I'd rather make my own voice heard when it's apparently requested :)

To understand why RPSM has never been blocked before you have to understand the blocking policy of svwp. There has always been a reluctancy to block users for other reasons than simple vandalism. POV pushers have often been left going with constant warnings and reverts, until someone finally tires of it and puts in an infinite block. Most often, in those cases, the blocking admin asks on sv:WP:KAW (commentaries on administrative actions) if the action was justified. This was never done in this case though, but no one stepped in anyway and unblocked. The activity on svwp is low enough for all interested admins to follow blocks, and virtually everyone knows everyone on the project. A block like this does not go unnoticed, and if there were any objections, they would be heard. I consider myself one of the more "brave" admins when it comes to blocks, and have often stepped in when everyone wants to block someone, but no one wants to pull the trigger (a part of Swedish culture in itself, probably).

For three years, RPSM has edited virtually only one article, its and his own talk page. Just scroll through the archives and you will see much work the user has put into pushing his agenda. In the process, he has offended every user who has tried to help with accusations of racism. I don't see any reason why we should let this user in on svwp again, and now that i come to think of it, I see absolutely no reason why I should discuss this on English Wikipedia, which actually feels a little patronising and imperialistic.

/Grillo (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I can as well translate what I wrote in Niklas' latest link: "Evighetsblockerad, självklart inte pga en missad indentering. Det är synd att det här inte kunnat hanteras bättre med kortare blockeringar succesivt, men jag såg ingen annan utväg än en evighetsblockering." -> "Infinitely blocked, obviously not because of a missed indentation [RPSM hasn't learnt how to indent properly in 3 years]. It's sad this couldn't be solved with gradual blocks, but I saw no other way out than an infinite block." /Grillo (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No intention here to be patronising or imperialistic - just trying to help out a user I encountered here... and the project. I couldn't navigate your pages, or I'd happily have discussed it there. The block seemed rather baffling, you've explained it now. Is it your intention to just leave him blocked forever, regardless? --Dweller (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Grillo: Inget att be om ursäkt för! Niklas R^Talk_page 17:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you see any good reason to unblock a disruptive user who steals far too much of everyone else's time and never contributes anything that lasts to articles? /Grillo (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to answer - I can't follow the contributions made, and struggle to understand how he'd be disruptive for 3+ years without a incurring a single short block. I tend to take the line that all but simple vandals can be turned around into worthwhile contributors, so long as they understand the issues, want to participate and are moderately intelligent. I appreciate that not everyone agrees with me. But is it worth a shot? --Dweller (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PS I've never been accused of imperialism before. The Dweller Empire sounds rubbish. Although I wouldn't mind a few slaves. --Dweller (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to explain the blocking culture on svwp above, please ask me and I'll try to elaborate if it wasn't clear enough. As with many smaller wikis, svwp hasn't codified its practice as much as enwp. Many meta documents are out of date and much of the current policy and culture can only be observed by reading old discussions. It seems rather obvious that Wikipedia isn't made for RPSM. This doesn't mean that RPSM is not intelligent, Wikipedia simply isn't for everyone. If you don't want to write in an encyclopedic manner and can't be made to understand how Wikipedia works for three years despite many attempts to explain (by me and many others), probably it isn't in your best interest to keep trying to edit. RPSM also clearly has a pov agenda, and at least my private belief is that people with obvious pov agendas should be blocked. The comment on imperialism refers to the fact that someone on enwp seems to be trying to change a decision made on svwp, and also questions why enwp blocking culture/policy isn't followed on svwp, when someone else (I) has tried to explain why that is so. /Grillo (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Still don't get what imperialism has to do with anything - perhaps that's your POV. Hope no-one blocks you! I agree Wikipedia isn't for everyone, I was hoping we could persuade RPSM to behave within the norms and thereby be a good Wikipedian. It seems there's no appetite for that. Although I have no idea if we'd have been successful anyway, it just seems rather a shame. Anyway, thanks for your detailed explanations. And I assure you, I have no plans for conquest. Well, not this year. --Dweller (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Disregarding imperialism or not. The crux is if RPSM understands what it takes to be able to work within the svwp-community. If it can be shown that this is the case i'd gladly unblock him/her myself. However, until such understanding is demonstrated by RPSM there really isn't much more to discuss. RPSM can still edit his/her talk page on svwp and request that the block be revoked, explaining that he/she understands what led to the block and how he/she plans to avoid falling back into the same kind of behavior again. If you, Dweller, can help RPSM understand these issues that would be a good thing, regardless if RPSM is let back on svwp or not. I will try to help by providing translations etc if you need it, but i do not think this is the right place for a discussion on svwp:s blocking principles in general. Niklas R^Talk_page 19:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

" I was hoping we could persuade RPSM to behave within the norms and thereby be a good Wikipedian (...) it just seems rather a shame". I think this sums up quite well why RPSM wasn't blocked for nearly four years. It just seemed like such a waste. Niklas R^Talk_page 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

:-) --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention of criticising the way you guys do things and re-reading what I wrote, I think it does appear that I did. I apologise for that. As I say, it wasn't intended. I've posted to RPSM that the best way forward is for him/her to learn to moderate their ways here. I'll try to help them, if they wish to be helped (which is always the key). You've all been very generous with your time and explanations, for which I thank you. And it can't be easy explaining detail like this in a second or third language. I hope RPSM comes back to you in a few months with evidence of being a model Wikipedian and you then have an opportunity to reconsider. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to it. If you need anything else, you might want to contact me via my swedish talk page, i usually don't check this page as often. Niklas R^Talk_page 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We've been trying to teach him how to be a good wikipedian for three years now. I don't see any reason why his behaviour would suddenly improve now. By the way, I see your apparent negligence toward the core principle of NPOV as quite problematic. Why fight for problem users' right to edit? /Grillo (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can now edit my own talk page on Swedish wikipedia. I could not do this before and so have not until now done more that make a very weak and symbolic protest about my block there because I could not edit anything whatsoever there until I tried today. RPSM (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect there was an autoblock on your ip, i know that that has caused similar problems in other cases, but i don't know for sure what the problem was.Niklas R^Talk_page 12:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am now blocked from editing anything on Swedish Wikipedia including my own talk page there. A correction. I edited practically the entire Swedish article Kashruth. I edited an article Keneidelech there (recipe) as well as Posek, but someone else took the credit. I did not start out with the idea of focusing on articles of Jewish interest, but noticed there was a lot of bias and no references. I also initiated and edited the article DIALREL (EU project on religious slaughter. The story is that a couple of serious academics encouraged me to research the literature on the subject of Religious Slaughter and controverises in Scandinavia (banned in Switzerland, Norway and Sweden). I made a serious project of it ordering rare books that are not in any libraries in Sweden, where I am.

My problem is trying to write articles about the subject of Religous Slaughter bans that are POV free, when a fair number of the most authoritative sources are scathing and sceptical as to how the Swedish authorities have handled this matter (Temple Grandin, Professor of Food Science: Regensberg, and a pair of Swedish ethnologists: Karlsson and Svanberg). I have not had any serious discussions with Swedish editors who have taken the trouble to read the sources. My impression is that there is an overwhelming conviction in Sweden based on hearsay and politics. This is Temple Grandin's comment (acknowleged world expert) that basing scientific work on politics results in bad science. My views on this matter are based on the current research which seems to be divided depending on if you are American or Scandinavian or from a muslim country. I am trying to present the facts as they exist in the sources and it is an uphill struggle.

There are two differences between English Wikipedia and Swedish Wikipedia. On the Swedish version you are not permitted to erase anything on your home page. ii) There is no rule not to discuss the subject matter. So every now and then a political discussion is initiated eg "I would prefer to die from a steel bolt through the head" (and even worse that I will not repeat) which is not the level of discussion I am interested in.

I also edited Blood Libel in Swedish, but my entire contribution was erased. I have also edited articles on old photographic processs. I started the Swedish article on Cyber Bullying (Data Mobbning)

I started editing an article called Bans on Ritual Slaughter that changed its name ot Legal Aspects of Religous Slaghter. I was advised to edit in another language by an editor so have switched between the two languages. I am interested in the controversy as such, as I have a background in Sociolinguistics that covers how people from different cultures misunderstand each other. RPSM (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Did you just want to make these points or is there anything else i can do for you? Niklas R^Talk_page 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Another point is this: My Swedish talk page has been heavily edited to remove anything the administrators thought offensive and controversial, while my responsess remain. This makes reading what is left impossible to follow and my tone unjustified. RPSM (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems odd. I'll look in to it. Niklas R^Talk_page 13:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. The only significant decrese in the amount of text on your sv-talk page is when sv:Användare:GameOn archived the discussions before and including 2010 diff. The archives are still availible via links at the top of your sv-talk page. This was supposedly done in response to an unspecified comment you made here on enwp. Is this the "heavy edit[ing]" you refer to? If not, please provide diffs. If you want me to i can revert the edit by Game on, but personally i think tat archiving these old discussions is a good thing if you are to return to svwp some day. Niklas R^Talk_page 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is true I said I had been trying to read some of the old posts in the history, but they were not showing. Perhaps it was because I had never archived them and it was overloading the system somehere I surmised and told Game On so, so Game On archived them. A separate point is that there has been editing of the most offensive things said against me, while I could not alter my own Swedish talk page or article talk pages. I remember this exchange:

Grillo: Du kallade mig en antisemit!

RPSM: Det gjorde jag inte.

Law: Du tror att vem som helst som stödjer lagen är en antisemit.

Grillo: you called me an antisemite!

RPSM: I did not.

Law: Apparently you think that anyone who supports the Swedish law banning Religious slaughter is an antisemite.

But this conversation has disappeared from the record. (Law's comment was first made in a debate in Sydsvenska Dagbladet quoted in the article Religös slakt see Skäktning article references.)

The fact that the blocking adminstrator was himself a party in accusations that I deny, makes me feel that the whole process is not strictly impartial.

Wvs's initial warning to me (ref later) to desist from editing the article was echoed by admin Sjö and I reacted angrily, as I felt then and still do now, that if I am serious about researching the literature, I have as just as much right as anyone else to edit if I have something to contribute. I snapped back at Sjö that I was not one of his privates (a remark which I now regret. Law reported to me that Sjö had been tremendously upset at this and had decided to back out of editing the Skäktning (Religious Slaughter) article.

The fact that administrator Sjö himself initiated a complaint to block me after having been directly involved in a clash that both of us ought to have worked out together between us indicate that the moves to block are not free from personal vendettas where the administrators themselsves are personally involved. In a court of law, the personal interest would disqualify them from acting plaintiff, judge and jury all at once. RPSM (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as i can see there has been no deletion of specific revisions of your talk page. Therefore you should be able to find this exchange in the history and provide a diff. I'm sorry to say that i don't have the time to sift through the (quite extensive) page history myself. Regarding your points about partial administrators: Yes, svwp is small and all the admins know eachother, that does not, however, mean that we do not strive to be fair and impartial. Sjö could just have blocked you him/her self, but instead made an official complaint and left it to others to decide if a block was justified. WP, crucially, isn't a court of law, but a community – wich of course doesn't deminish your opinion that you have been treated unfairly. Niklas R^Talk_page 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that I lost my cool when there was a rapid fire exchange the last time round. I certainly am not a POV pusher. Professor Regenstein of Cornell University accuses others of agenda politics here[1]as well as elsewhere. Temple Grandin does so as well. Some of this criticism is specifically directed at Swedish veterinarians. So it is not POV pushing to gather sources that concur to criticise the banning lobby as long as this is relevant and interesting and not deliberately distorted or exaggerated. RPSM (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC) The link given here is not to be argumentative, but purely out of interest. RPSM (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also looked, both today and earlier, and I can't see that anything from Grillo has been removed (although I've limited myself to edits before March 2008 since that's when this was mentioned the first time). RPSM, are you sure that it was on your talk page on svwp and not some other page? GameOn (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was on the discussion page for the article Skäktning.

Quote follows

Please forgive me for cutting and pasting a huge wodge of text that follows, but here Grillo admits to erasing text on the talk page (to Swedish araticle Skäktning I have put one part in bold and italicized the last sentence and intented so this very long quote should be more legible than the original.

Quote from Swedish Talk Page "Skäktning"

Eftersom det går inte att lagstadga om religösa ritualer har Sverige heller inte någon lag som säger att kosherslakt är förbjuden i Sverige. Paragraf 14 i djurskyddslagen är en djurskyddslag och här i Sverige anser vi att djurskyddet är överordnat religiösa traditioner.MvhWvs 30 november 2007 kl. 13.17 (CET)

I många avseende är det ju till för att skydda djur och lagen gör det också. Angående lagens utformning så att judar inte får slakta kött utan att skjuta två eller tre bultar i pannan, som de inte får pga judiska djurskyddslagar i Talmuds traktat Hullin, det är en raslag, och så har judiska företrädare sagt offentilgt - "den sista av Nazisternas raslagar." (Stockholms judiska församlingens ordförande på Sveriges television.) Att artikeln ljuger och säger att skäktning förbjuds i Sverige och övriga länder pga djurskyddsskäl, är likt lögnerna Nazisterna använde som att man skulle till någon arbestsläger, när, i själva verket, man skulle brännas i ungnar RPSM 5 december 2007 kl. 04.36 (CET)

Det var Sjö som gjorde redigeringen med redigeringskommentaren som används som rubrik ovan, det kan man se av historiken. Det jag gjort med den här artikeln är en borttagning av vad jag uppfattade vara upprepad information i artikeln, och diskussionsinlägget ovanför det ovan, plus naturligtvis det här inlägget. Det är bra att kontrollera vem som gjort vad innan man pekar ut personer för att göra det ena och det andra. Dessutom är det totalt irrelevant vem som gjort något, det som spelar roll är varför och vad som gjorts. Sedan är det knappast speciellt vettigt att kalla andra personer för antisemiter baserat på borttagning av upprepad info, om du fortsätter med det lär du bli blockerad från att bidra till Wikipedia. /Grillo 30 november 2007 kl. 13.21 (CET)

För övrigt drar du en massa onödiga växlar av artikeln. Oavsett vilken grund lagen stiftats på finns den, det är allt vi ska redogöra för. Det står i artikeln

"Slakt utan föregående bedövning är i Europa av djurskyddsskäl förbjuden i Norge, Sverige och Schweiz samt på Island.

Paragraf 14 i djurskyddslagen i Sverige lyder: "Husdjur skall vid slakten vara bedövat när blodet tappas av. Andra åtgärder vid slakten får inte vidtas innan djuret är dött.""

Är något av detta sakligt fel? Sedan kan man argumentera i evigheter varför lagen stiftats, men paragrafen finns i djurskyddlagen, och därför är det officiellt av denna anledning som lagen finns. Sedan gäller den per definition även halalslakt, eftersom den är i princip identisk med kosherslakt. Det är inte Wikipedias uppgift att bedöma varför en viss lag stiftats. /Grillo 30 november 2007 kl. 13.26 (CET)

The bold text shows where Grillo admits erasing text on the talk page, and my guess was that the erased material included "Du kallade mig en antisemit" (only a guess) RPSM (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You can interpret the text in another way as well. I interpret it in the following way: Grillo has removed redundant information from the article. Made one addition to the talk page. And then added the text you are quoting. If you take the time to go over the history for the article and talk page you will see that my interpretation of the text is correct. Please provide a diff showing otherwise. I would also suggest that you (RPSM) stop making misstakes about who has done what. You've made the same misstake about Sjö and another user that you earlier (in 2007) did with Grillo and Sjö. Please stop accusing other editors for actions that others have done. Noone else is responsible for finding proof for your claims that information has been removed. I have already looked over this and found nothing that supports your claim that so has been done. Either you find a diff that supports your case or stop complaining about this. Besides, what's the point with your complaints? I doubt that continuing this almost four years later will let you come back to editing on svwp - you were not banned because of faults others have done! GameOn (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GameOn. RPSM, I'll have to get back to you on this later, as I said earlier my WP-time is rather limited at the moment. ����Niklas R^Talk_page 20:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

status now

Status now is that I am permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia and can edit nothing, not even my talk page there. I was requested by Sjö to fix a reference there in the Skäktning article, and of course cannot do it. (A reference to Professor Sjöstedt's report that Jewish slaughter is humane and not cruel from 1925. (Veterinärhögskolan)

Also the Shechita article I wrote needs a core section (the terms used for knife technique). The Swedish article I wrote on the Daguerreotype needs some core information (What is the chemical composition of the image?)

I was going to entirely rewrite the Skäktning article (Relgious Slaghter), now I have gathered references and read them, but instead I could use it for course credit somewhere or perhaps publish something myself.RPSM (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have only a very limited amount of wp-time at the moment. I'll have a look at this, but it may take a while. Is that satisfactory? Niklas R^Talk_page 18:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As regards the dispute on Swedish Wikipedia, I have researched this, and it appears to be entirely political. I can quote a review of a newspaper debate carried on that has the identical argument (Jews say anyone who opposes Religious Slaughter is an antisemite) covered in the article on Religious Slaughter in Karlsson and Svanberg's book. How this argument jumped into the talk pages of Wikipedia, I have no idea. I did not introduce it. Regards, RPSM (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in Swedish and Dutch articles:(( Hallelujah]]

The Hebrew spelling in the Swedish and Dutch articles has an error in the Hebrew.

The spelling of the word "hallelujah" in the English is not pointed and is correct.

The Swedish and Dutch articles have the vowel points inserted and there is an error.

Under the lamed there is a hiriq which is one single dot pronounced i. This is wrong.

The correct pointing is a shva under the lamed. (neutral vowel)

I can change the Dutch article, but not the Swedish one, as I am permanently blocked from editing there.

What to do? RPSM (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

1) I am blocked on Swedish WP. I think, for no good reason. 2) I wish to report an error in Sw WP.

In the article "Sabbaten", the following sentence appears as the final sentence: Det finns dock inga historiska bevis för att lagarna om sabbatsår, jubelår och friår någonsin har efterlevs. My transation: "There is, however, no historical evidence that the laws on Schmitta (sabattical year), jubilee year, or sabbatical year have ever been followed." Firstly, the last mentioned "friår" is secular, and means taking a year off from eg a University teaching tenure. The biblical sabbatical year shmitta means every seventh year, the land (in Israel) must lie fallow (I träda). Domestic ans wild animals are allowed to eat anything that grows. The owner may eat for private consumption but may not put it on the market (fruit, grapes etc). Wine may not contain grapes harvested in these years. So it is very much indeed observed today by observant Jews. Extra Rabbinical laws to deal with those who were not punctillious in their observance are discussed in th English article. That Swedish WP can be so sloppy in cases such as this, frankly makes it an unreliable source. RPSM (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)