User talk:SuzanneOlsson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable comments

I strongly suggest you retract your personal attacks here and here. You may be frustrated but the comments you made on History2007's talk page are unacceptable. If you do not redact them you will be blocked for making personal attacks.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed it. Thanks for noticing. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thank you to those who created a new bio page for me. However, I pointed out several times that the article you repeatedly quote from the Times of India about 59th descent is is incomplete and largely untrue. It was submitted by someone near Roza Bal who has contributed many untrue statements to the press and the media. Suggesting that I 'planted material' in the tomb, et cetera are lies generated by one person who gave the interview. In other of his interviews, he repeats this pattern to and about other people as well. I made several suggestions for corrections here, but these were ignored. I cannot allow the page to exist in this form. I have contacted the Times of India to ask for a correction or a retraction. Unless and until such time, I would prefer to have no page rather than inaccurate source material that presents me in such a negative way. I believe that admonition appears right at the top of every Bio page. It says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." Claiming I 'planted things in the tomb' is libelous and harmful to me..in addition to other comments made by Mr. Amin. Further, that information was NOT submitted to Times of India by a Board of Directors as the article claims. They had no knowledge that Mr. Amin was making these claims or these interviews. Thank you for understanding. If you have any questions, please just ask me. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)SuzanneOlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced, and in what is considered a reliable source. You may disagree with it, or think it's wrong but due to your COI you're NOT allowed to delete content like that. It may be worthwhile to put the whole page up at WP:AFD because I don't think your notable enough for inclusion, but regardless of that, you need to STAY VERY clear of that page, and not edit it. — raekyt 20:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy at the top iof the page, it says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." I am telling you this information is not accurate. Leave it alone unless you can prove otherwise.. Thank you. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's referring to unsourced information. It's sourced to a reliable source, thus valid for inclusion. I know you seem to avoid reading WP:RS and other policy pages, but really you should. You're going to get blocked if you keep it up. — raekyt 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I to presume that you are calling me a liar when I say this information is not true? Because that is what you are suggesting . SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you not understand WP:RS? You're word, your WP:OR, is irrelevant when it comes to what a reliable source says. — raekyt 20:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I would rather the entire p[age be deleted than to have this misinformation appear. You should love that idea as you think I am so unworthy anyway.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not how we operate here at wikipedia, we operate under WP:CONSENSUS, and the avenue for deleteing the content is WP:AFD. — raekyt 20:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, SuzanneOlsson. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Suzanne M. Olsson, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Because this page is about you, you should NOT wholesale delete it's content like that. Reliable sources are valid for inclusion, regardless of your opinion of their content. — raekyt 20:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And by what rights do you deem yourself worthy to determine the truth or validity of these edits? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Years of experience interpreting policy.... if you disagree that these are reliable sources, as others not just me have pointed out to you, take it to WP:RSN. — raekyt 21:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Times of India is a reliable source. The man they quoted in their article is a liar and a thief who completely misrepresented many things in that article.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Suzanne M. Olsson. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — raekyt 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Suzanne M. Olsson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — raekyt 20:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Suzanne M. Olsson

The article Suzanne M. Olsson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — raekyt 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There I put it up for a WP:PROD, if it's unopposed for 7 days it gets deleted, if someone opposes, next step is WP:AFD. That is the proper avenue for deleting a page, consensus. — raekyt 20:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I request immediate deletion of this page because of false information and potentially libelous information allowed to remain. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen. — raekyt 21:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why Raeky? You yourself are making all these posts about speedy deletion of my page.. and you yourself are resisting all efforts to correct the contentious material...Surely speedy deletion would be best, and what you yourself suggested above.. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:SPEEDY#G7 isn't an option anymore, although you created the page there's been significant contributions to it by other editors since, so WP:PROD is your next best chance of getting it deleted, or straight to WP:AFD.. And I did not suggest a speedy deleteion, I suggested deleteion by consensus, i.e. PROD or AFD. — raekyt 21:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Now wait a Yankee minute here! Take a look at the IP and name of person who created this article recently. I haven't a clue who it is. I thanked them.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, as you are by your own description an experienced editor here....then by all means delete the page yourself. Let's just put an end to this shall we? I may not know all about Wiki, but I know right from wrong when it comes to talking about people, especially after you've been advised numerous times that this is false information fed to the Times of India article...and remember I am deemed 'not worthy' anyway...so just do the deed and be done with it. Thank you. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what your talking about, the reason you got the PROD notice from the script is because you created the page. Check the edit history. I am dealing with it, thus the PROD, I'm dealing with it according to policy. You've been here for five years editing, so it's pretty sad for you to say now "I don't know all about wiki" and we're talking about very basic stuff here, page deleteing, conflict of interest, reliable sourcing, original research... you should of at least read all these policies by now, or most of them, and know the basics. Plus your page is Roza Bal related, so editing it is in direct violation of your topic ban... — raekyt 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I have been a member for 5 years but I have not contributed for four years. I only returned a few months ago. Check it out yourself.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not made any edits at the Roza bal page. I only tried to remove this page today. I made no edits to it. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I know that sevreral of those policies have been linked to you numerous times for you to read... like WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:COI. Your ban is broadly construed meaning any article that is even remotely related is included in the ban, this includes your bio. — raekyt 21:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing the article is not the same as editing the article. I tried to remove the article.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very much the same, a topic ban from editing an article definitely also includes deleting the article's contents. The COI alone should be reason enough to stay away from your bio, but the topic ban should of been the clincher. — raekyt 21:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember several friends of mine-all authors- who have had similar issues with Wiki about their Bios. Wiki Editors can inflict very unkind words and ideas and slantBio pages negatively-- all the while claiming some 'divine right' to do so.It is not acceptable to allow untrue info on a page. Quote all the COI and bans you want to refer back to...wrong is wrong, and this is all wrong on many levels. .SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that is based on reliable sourcing and verifiability of it's content. It's not a publicity site, or your personal website, we're not here to sugar coat your bio, write you glowing reviews so you can sell more books. Read WP:NOT. — raekyt 21:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh please stop with the insinuations already.I have pointed out what the flaws were- where the problems with truth are...I have begged for help from Wiki editors to make just one or two lines of minor edits to clarify the issues. I have tried...it is you who has not tried. It has nothing to do with sugar coating anything- nor with selling more books. Shame on you. Just delete this page speedily. Then no more worries for you about all the Wiki rules I break. I am sure you can find dozens more. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not within my power to speedly delete a page, maybe you should convince an admin to do so, there's a bunch at WP:ANI discussing extending your topic ban to talk pages as well. The best I can do, following policy, is to PROD or AFD, both slow processes. PROD being the less messy of the two and the one more likely to succeed. AFD has no guaranteed outcome, and plenty of inclusionists that may find the very few sources on you convincing enough for WP:GNG. — raekyt 21:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Just get me out of here! I dont want to be on Wiki. I dont want to be on Wiki. I am not worthy. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Doing a little searching looks like you used User:Kashmir2 in the past, since 2005, and who knows what other accounts? Please read WP:SOCK. — raekyt 22:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Naw. That was when my grandaughter was here...I had no idea what a 'sock puppet' was until after tius event. She immediately stopped using my computer.Search away, my dear. It was never my intention to roam Wiki with a dozen fake names. I have enough trouble just using ONE. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to recall- I think there was one more name at that time...we were all using the same computer then..as stated, when we realized this was being construed as 'sock puppet' we had to be careful about not posting on Wiki...because there were three of us here and at that time we were each excited and happy to join the Wiki group (my daughter and granddaughter and me) . There was nothing false or backhanded intended. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also meatpuppets... I don't know enough about the circumstances to pass judgement. — raekyt 23:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppets? Surely you jest. That is definately not something we would have used. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. With this edit [1] — raekyt 03:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? Well, thank you for that information. Is this what you are refering to? If that article continues to appear as written,if I am blocked from correcting it or commenting on the talk pages then I will pursue this further. I have to protect myself. No it is not about self promotion or book sales. It is about truthfulness and fair balanced reporting. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Leaky-err- reaky- Here's some more about legal threats (I have not made any- but heck, I'll humor you for a while) HERE http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_overlook_legal_threats

SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I placed a warning, letting you know the policy on legal threats. It's up to an admin to decide if a block is appropriate or not. Generally it's probably not for what you said, but what you said is dangerously close to a legal threat. — raekyt 03:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)