User talk:Sju hav

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Brackets[change source]

I'm curious as to why you're using random brackets in the middle of text such as "a book that listed the entire [written] statement" or "An obituary for [Adolf] Hitler." It doesn't make up with our Wikipedia formatting of articles. Only (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Text in brackets, are not covered explicitly by the quote. In the case that you have mentioned, it would be quite reasonable for you or anyone to remove the brackets (because there are no reputable sources that point to Hamsun writing obituaries for others than one person with the last name that you mentioned). In other cases, removing brackets might be inappropriate, more or less.
In addition, by leaving the brackets, wikipedians including myself know exactly what text needs additional citation(s). Sju hav (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding "[written] statement": The medical experts in the trial, made written statements (a doctor's certificate, of sorts); and of course some, or all the experts, made verbal statements at the trial. Sju hav (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Only: Using single brackets like that is a standard way (in English writing, not Wikipedia markup) of clarifying quotes by adding words to help the reader understand what was meant. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware of it for its use in quotes (I'm an English teacher), but he's using it mid sentence outside of quotes. Only (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Notes from the psychoanalysis of Knut Hamsun[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Notes from the psychoanalysis of Knut Hamsun, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Notes from the psychoanalysis of Knut Hamsun and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Only (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I have commented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2017/Notes_from_the_psychoanalysis_of_Knut_Hamsun. Sju hav (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing categories[change source]

Hello, Sju hav. I noticed that you have created several categories for various occupation/nationality combinations. An example is Category:Austrian physicists. When you create those, they need to be categorized into at least two categories: one for the occupation by nationality (such as Category:Physicists by nationality), and one for the people of the nationality and profession (such as Category:Austrian people by occupation, or in the case of the current example, Category:Austrian scientists). Thanks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not putting enough effort into categorizing. (My poor excuse is that I have tried to focus on low-importance content (writing phrases to show notability of "red-link" scientists, -mathematicians and -historians), without putting enough effort into categorizing.) Sju hav (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[change source]

Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Greek scientists. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The category "Ancient Greek astronomers‎" had aleady been created by someone else (with more than three in that category). That category is a subset of "Greek scientists". However, you might want to look into the matter if "Ancient Greeks" should be considered a subset of "Greek". If the "Ancient Greeks" are not a nationality, then that might be a reason to delete the category that you are complaining(?) about. Sju hav (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not complaining. I am pointing out that the category does not conform to the guideline. Category:Ancient Greek people is a subset of Category:Greek people, so that is not a problem. The issue is that Category:Greek scientists was created with fewer than the desired number of entries: there are two, and there should be at least three. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The more than three "Ancient Greek astronomers‎", are they Greek scientists? Should they now be labeled also as "Greek scientists" (I don't think such labeling is a good idea, since the category "Greek scientists", already included the subcategory of more than 3 "Ancient Greek Astronomers")? Sju hav (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they are Greek scientists, but you are correct that they should not be added to Category:Greek scientists. Entries (whether they are articles, categories, or something else) should not be over-categorized in order to satisfy the 3-entry guideline. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

List articles[change source]

Hello, Sju Hav. Thanks for the lists of scientists that you recently created. I noticed that you marked some of them with the {{stub}} template. On list articles, the correct template to use is {{list-stub}}. Usually list articles do not need any stub template at all, but if you do use one, please use the one for lists. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And related to list articles: please concentrate on making articles about the scientists first THEN worry about the lists. You're making dozens of lists where there are only redlinks on the list. The MOS guidelines on lists state: However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space. These lists definitely seem to fall in this category and should either be moved to your user space, or the articles need to be developed before the lists. Only (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have now added something that you might find worthwile (to one article). Enjoy! [1] Sju hav (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I meant at all. The red links in the list now need to become articles. So you should write an article on Kimal Akishev, not just put a reference proving his existence next to his name on the list. Only (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You have mentioned some topics that should are beyond how you or I interpret wikipedia's guidelines. The following link goes to discussion that might be quite relevant [2]. At least you will know at least one article that I will not write (after being told (or suggested to do so, in a way that I find questionable and possibly objectionable). Have a nice day! Sju hav (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel like I'm "ordering" you but I'm just telling you the guidelines: if you continue to make these list articles that contain only red links, I'll start moving them to your user space. They do not belong in the main space when they contain mostly, if not all, redlinks. As it says in the MOS guidelines I pasted to you above, "a list that consists entirely of red links....should be in either the project or user space, not the main space." As an administrator, I enforce guidelines; if that's "ordering" in your mind then so be it. Only (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines, from the word "guide", are not rules that are written in stone.
I suggest that you nominate for deletion List of South Korean scientists or the one about the "Kazakstani ones". And when you do, I have one user talk page that is on my short list, of those to be notified.
I am sorry that it was not clear to you that your suggestion about Kimal Akishev, could be viewed as a suggestion with an objectionable tone. (It does not bother me, but it might bother me somewhat if you keep on writing like that to other wikipedians, now or in the future.)
Nobody should be bothered by discussing guidelines, if things are done politely.
Have a nice day! Sju hav (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes on formatting the list articles[change source]

A few notes:

  • If a page is in, for example, Category:Georgian scientists, it does not need to also be in Category:Georgian people because the scientists category is (or should be) already under the people category.
  • Please do not put a period after a stub template -- or after most templates, for that matter.
  • Two blank lines are included before a stub template, so that the template is visually more separated from the rest of what's on the page.
  • Sort keys for list articles start with an asterisk.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Another note: when you add references to a page, please also add a references section (heading and template) if there isn't one already. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In a way, I tried to answer this post, when I created category:Norwegian municipalities,
after first asking on Simple Talk, if one of my two suggestions might be acceptable.
Sorry for this belated reply to this thread.
Thank you for your effort. Sju hav (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Category:Lists of scientists by nationality (Note to myself - user:sju hav - in part)[change source]

I - and anyone reading my talk page - was not notified (on my talk page), of the following matter. Therefore my following post:

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Lists of scientists by nationality, an article you created, and the articles in that category:


We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

If anyone is interested, then please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Category:Lists of scientists by nationality and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Some might find that this note to myself - and also informing others thru my talk page - is not necessary; I respect anyone's right to have that idea. Thank you very much. Sju hav (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

From user:sju hav:
It might be fair to say that the above Lists, that are red-links, have been, more or less merged, into one (or two) of the following articles.
List of scientists from the Middle East
List of scientists from the Americas
List of European scientists by country
List of Asian scientists by country
List of African scientists by country
List of scientists

List of historians by country
List of European historians. Sju hav (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[change source]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. You might not have done it on purpose, but your recent change removed helpful information from Wikipedia. We ask that you do not remove things from pages, as you did to "Norway", without giving a good reason in the change summary. If it was a mistake, do not worry. The part of the article you removed has been put back. If you want to try things out, please use the sandbox. If you would like to learn how to help Wikipedia, please see the welcome page. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To this diff [3], I should have made the edit remark more clear: "Moved to talk page". Sju hav (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Signature (Note to myself - user:sju hav - in part)[change source]

When one posts on other talk pages, one must also write one's signature there. Sju hav (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the original post, because I noticed a mistake I made.
By making the post, I was going to save someone, the effort of having to contact me, to point out my mistake (which I noticed too late). Sju hav (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikification (Note to myself - user:sju hav - in part)[change source]

"*" (or asterix) in front of names in lists[change source]

No one should make lists, without "*" in front of each listed name. Sju hav (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Fazenda Lageado[change source]

Please, check the English text is weak.

Please remember to sign your posts. I will try to have another look at the article you suggested, later. Sju hav (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
[4] Sju hav (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Human geography[change source]

Information.svg We like and strongly encourage helpful changes to Wikipedia, but "Human geography" was directly copied and pasted from the main English Wikipedia. Please do not do that. Such articles are usually too complex. They need to be simplified before or immediately after being added to the Simple English Wikipedia. In addition, be sure to include attribution on the article's talk page. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You have provided me with a copy [5] of the deleted stub. Thank you.
I am removing sentence number two - of the three. (That I forgot to remove that (complicated) sentence, was clearly good enough reason to have the article deleted.)
Regarding the rest of it: I am resubmitting it, as it stands. (In my "original": the last sentence was a major rework. And the first sentence had one "re-word".
If it is good enough as a stub or sub-stub - fine.
In case it does not fly this time either, then I will leave it at that. Sju hav (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

List articles[change source]

Don't think to have a section under the name of Wikipedia has no article about : is appropriate at all, which kinda proves our point about deleting these lists. If you need to resort to doing this, then the lists really aren't necessary. Thank you. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 16:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the title for that section.
I am fine with you writing certain phrases on my talk page, but please reconsider your phraseology on other threads. (I am not saying that no one agrees with your choice of phrase, however I am arguing that more than one person might like you to consider your choice of phrase, next time around.) Sju hav (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Thank you. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 19:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zhangj1079: there was nothing wrong with your phrasing whatsoever. Only (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Only: Face-grin.svg It's alright. Criticism is welcome. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Face-grin.svg Yes, it is sometimes nice to know which nuances of language, are the most neutral (or far from neutal).
Invite me to someone's talk page, and I will see if I will take the time to explain an arguably different topic:
If someone was to say "Too bad your argumentation was not good enough, and in the end you had to resort to the worst of arguments" - that would arguably not have been a neutral wording. (However I don't mind stuff like that - on my talk page.) Sju hav (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(Question from user:sju hav:) List of scientists from one country, on my user page: Is the following diff seemingly permissable?[change source]

I have a list of notable scientists, and a "hidden work list" of scientists whose wiki-English article I have to read again, to search again for what might be wiki-notable (or most notable).

Is the "hidden list" - as it now stands - permitted? See [6]

The point of the hidden List, is that its information is more readily available for me, and I can have some of my user "work pages" deleted.

And if such "hidden" work lists are permissable, then likely I will have to start even fewer "work pages". Sju hav (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In relation to: List of Bosnia and Herzegovina scientists[change source]

I spotted your request to have the article above deleted, while looking through the Administrator's Noticeboard. Although I am not an administrator, I have tagged your article for quick deletion, based on the fact that you have asked for it to be done. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment here, as I will be watching your talk page. Many Thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am making another article List of Bosnia and Herzegovina scientists - this time with two "red-link scientists" who arguably are clearly wiki-notable.
(I thought about the improvements, after I suggested deletion.)
Thank you for your improvements to wikipedia! Sju hav (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that the contents of the article has been, more or less, merged with List of scientists from Europe - Section "Bosnia and Herzegovina". Sju hav (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

School project pages[change source]

I saw that you edited Wikipedia:Schools/Projects/Notable Female Scientists. Please do not edit school project pages that you have nothing to do with. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take "the problem" to the appropriate talk page, [7].
(And I reverted your edit/revert on the project page. The edit comment explains why.) Thanks. Sju hav (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
And I have reverted you again. The page belongs to the school project, and no one else needs to edit it, even if there's something wrong with it. Leave it alone. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You and I arguably have at least one other disagreement on the back-burner (and the one on this page, is one of the smaller disagreements, perhaps).
I have handed the matter (and the arguable backdrop) over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Perhaps that thread will have some advice that you and I can agree on. Sju hav (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[change source]

Information.svg Your comment about Peterdownunder in this edit at WP:AN was rude and uncalled for. Peter was replying to your request for input from admins. Please be civil in discussions. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have handed the matter over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Sju hav (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Peterdownunder was not rude to me.
I did not mean to be rude to him.
If I knew exactly what phrase or phrases were objectionable, then I will reword those,
however, the damage is already done, and I regret that.
And for the record, my complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, was not found to be justified.
Sorry for the delay in writing this. Sju hav (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbos talkpage[change source]

Seriously stop adding the crap to his talkpage, Incase it's not obvious if you carry it on you're not gonna find yourself blocked and FWIW you're not gonna get alot of sympathy, If I see you adding the crap again I will go to VIP or AN myself,
I would advise you go and do something productive like edit articles. –Davey2010Talk 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo likes to be informed. He has said so in at least one thread I have started on another wikipedia.
You have mentioned crap. I feel that one "shit storm crap storm" is over for now; a solution for various Lists of scientists, seems to have been worked out.
And the administrator who complained at English-wiki about my edits in general at Simple-wiki, and who also complained there about the Lists of scientist and red-links, might have to tweek his complaints (at that wikipedia), next time around.
At least one of my concerns that has been aired on Jimbo's talk page, has been resolved. Sju hav (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Some notes on list pages[change source]

Please include a list category, such as Category:Lists of people, on these articles.

If you're going to include a stub template, please use {{list-stub}} instead of the stub templates that are for articles, and put it at the very end of the page, even after the categories.

If there are references on the page, please include a references section.

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

After your post I have added one {{list-stub}} [8]. Sju hav (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Community ban proceedings initiated against you[change source]

Please be informed of an ongoing community ban discussion on Simple talk. The link to the thread is Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Community_ban_proposal_for_Sju_hav. Regards, Chenzw  Talk  16:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Lists of scientists[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Lists of scientists, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Lists of scientists and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Human geography[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Human geography, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Human geography and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a word for you.[change source]

I would like to say to you, openly, that I'm really sorry at the way things are going here. Nobody is perfect. Even me. I am very disheartened and disappointed that everything seems to be piling up. I hope everything is ok for you, and somewhere, you will find some space to be yourself and not have others sitting on you. DaneGeld (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Some (or many) say might think that I have had plenty of chances at wikipedia.
I probably should have asked for a liaison-not-unlike-a-mentor, some time ago.
I have enjoyed my stay.
Enjoy your stay! Sju hav (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)/ Sju hav (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear[change source]

I just found out about the request for community block. I'm really sorry that you had to go through this here, as well as the other Wikipedias. I'm apologise that it seems like everybody is against you, and I'm quite disappointed that they had to request the block. Maybe you need to break away from editing Wikipedia, try something else. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 02:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is probably fair to say that I have disappointed some, or many people on Wikipedia. That is regrettable.
Other than that, I have enjoyed my stay!
Enjoy your stay! Sju hav (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved tag (Request from user:sju hav)[change source]

The following talk page's first post, has been resolved, because the article has been fixed by someone else, [9].

Please show me the tag, or link to a tag, or tag that thread (on mentioned talk page). Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can the verdict from the Simple-wiki proposal, lead to me being banned (or blocked) at German-wiki (Request from user:sju hav)[change source]

At present, there is a proposal for having me banned.
Can that proposal directly result in me being banned at Deutsch-wiki ("German-wiki")?
What I read, "before today", makes me think that, "yes, a ban (or block) here, can directly get me banned there".
Something an admin wrote today, makes me imagine that, a ban (or block) here, can not directly get me banned there. Sju hav (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit remarks (Notes to myself - user:sju hav - in part)[change source]

Writing the phrase "Minor edit" ...[change source]

After clicking "the box, with the label, "Minor edit"
it is not necessary (or desirable) to also write "Minor edit", as an Edit remark. Sju hav (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page use[change source]

Sju hav, please stop using your talk page to make notes for yourself. The talk page is for communicating with others, not with yourself. If you want to make notes for yourself, you could use your main user page or a subpage in userspace (not in a talk space).

Along these same lines, if you have a question that you would like answered by someone else, it doesn't help to start a thread on your own talk page. It's better to start it at WP:Simple talk or possibly an individual user's talk page.

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I should have written as title: "Notes to others - and in part myself ..."
My user page, or a relevant "userspace thing",
are in my view the better solutions, for where to place the text (that apparently should have been labeled better,
and which perhaps was misplaced).
Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
Sju hav (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)/ Sju hav (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

#6[change source]

Was reading through the ban proposal on Simple Talk and noticed your suggestion to #6 actually reads the exact same as what Peterdownunder wrote. I'm assuming it was a copy/paste that you didn't get edited before posting, and with everything going on you didn't notice. Anyway, if you meant something else, it would be good to make the change. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

They are not exactly the same. Sju hav (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of the suggested work-under-conditions-of-a-degree-of-oversight agreement[change source]

(This is a comprehensive list of my understanding, including points that seem to be insisted on by Simple Talk.)
(This thread could have been created as a user talk page, but then it is more difficult for other users to point out problems (that might have escaped the attention at Simple Talk.)
  1. No discussions about what is happening/or has happened on other wikis.
  2. No complaints about the actions of other editors or administrators.
  3. No extended discussions about our policies or practices ("wikilawyering")
  4. No creation of new list pages
  5. Questions to be restricted to his talk page where his mentors will engage with him My suggestion: Questions - which ordinarily might belong on Simple Talk - to be restricted to his talk page where his mentors will engage with him.
  6. Demonstrate competence in Simple English through the creation of stubs on the people that he has already added to lists. My suggestion: Demonstrate competence in Simple English through the creation of stubs on people that he has already added to lists.
  7. List articles: I (and at least another) would prefer only a month restriction on creating, even if other restrictions are longer.
Alternative suggestion: Having a "List creation quota" of "4 over a 7-day period", where any such List has at least 4 "blue-link main subjects".
I have no plans about creating 4 lists every week - however I think my suggestion is reasonable.
What this thread is saying, sounds like it could be worth a try.
Sju hav (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Things which newer points might want to address in some way[change source]

That I am known to add solid references, is likely fair to say.
(If I add a reference to an existing article, will that be okay?)
I am assuming that nothing in this thread, says that it will not be okay (to add a reference to an existing article). Sju hav (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Which Lists can I continue to work on (if the "probation-before-conditional-direct block/ban" is put into effect, instead of direct block/ban)?[change source]

If someone were to say thas simple-wiki did not have its house in order, regarding red-link Lists,
then at least one person would agree.
Be that is may, I am willing to work on-and-off with List of historians (which I did not create - and not add "red link historians").
The same for List of physicists. Sju hav (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hold up. You seem to be forgetting that the ban discussion is still on-going and the restrictions suggested by Peterdownunder are merely an alternative. As DjSasso pointed out, the discussion is still on-going, with the votes of 6 support and 2 oppose. There's no guarantee that the ban won't happen. Regards, Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for posting this in your notes, feel free to do what you wish with the post. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with your Talk, on this Talk page.
My title to this sub-thread (or sub-sub ...) is "... if the "probation-before-conditional..." is put into effect, instead of direct block/ban". Sju hav (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

List of biologists[change source]

At present I am trying to improve the List, List of biologists.
At present, the List has only "blue link scientists", and I have no plans to oppose that de-facto policy in the List.
If the List violates guidelines, then it would be good to know.
(It is a long list, and right now I have given priority to "placing the scientists in time".)
I understand that one might question the wisdom of editing the List, while the kick-out-boots,
have been unpacked, and ready to be used (more or less), by the powers-that-be.
I have enjoyed my stay. Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

My current indefinite block here ...[change source]

@Eptalon - On what date, would it be reasonable for me to ask to have my indefinite block at Simple-wiki, be commuted to a definite block.
(Details of my block: "14:47, 30 September 2017 ... blocked Sju hav with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (per one strike policy; continuing to use Jimbo's talk page as a personal soapbox; bad case of "I didn't hear that"...")
Regards! Sju hav (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion moved to the thread below.
(Reason: an admin adressed the matter, a few seconds after I posted this thread.
The admin's edit was definitely a good-faith edit.) Sju hav (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved to thread below (from 2 October). Sju hav (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely[change source]

Because of your continued actions such as soapboxing at Jimbo Wales' talk page while under the scrutiny of a community ban discussion, it is clear that you will continue doing whatever you want to do even when told not to. As previously explained, your blocks in other Wikipedias allows for the use of the one strike policy, so this block is indefinite.

I have informed the community of my actions at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#I_have_blocked_Sju_hav_indefinitely. I encourage the community to continue its ban discussion. If you would like to respond to anything that occurs in that ban discussion, you can post it here and someone will copy it to the discussion for you. Only (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeating what I wrote in the thread above, (one minute before you started this thread):
"@Eptalon - On what date, would it be reasonable for me to ask to have my indefinite block at Simple-wiki, be commuted to a definite block.
(Details of my block: "14:47, 30 September 2017 ... blocked Sju hav with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (per one strike policy; continuing to use Jimbo's talk page as a personal soapbox; bad case of "I didn't hear that"...")
Regards!" Sju hav (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The blocking admin has a "doble-edged" conflict-of-interest: I notified Jimbo today, about the admin "being at the start of a timeline of seemingly odd, unrelated events" (or something like that).
And now the same admin is blocking me indefinitely, for writing an arguably neutral-worded recount of a timeline, where the admin's alleged actions, entail around one third of the alleged events (or perhaps less). Sju hav (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth noting, Jimbo doesn't exactly have too much power. He can't desysop, shut down Wikipedias at his will, delete pages, etc. Notifying him won't do much. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 15:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
In a thread I started, on another wikipedia, Jimbo wrote that he does not mind being informed.
I did not ask him (here) to do anything. I did not imply anything about "power".
(At the point in time that I was blocked, there was no de-facto guideline saying that I or anyone can not write (with neutral wording) on Jimbo's talk page.
That I was being groomed, at "Simple Talk", to not inform about anything on Jimbo's talk page -
that one can might reasonably argue. (But I can not see that I had "lost any 'rights' as a wikipedian, on "Simple",
at the point when I was wiki-sideswiped.)
Perhaps best to wait for Eptalon and StevenJ's communications:
They sometime seem to deliver reasonable plus arguments or top-shelf explanations.
Thank you for your good-faith edit. Sju hav (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In a thread below, I have asked for a different block. Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

My request: From indefinite block, to a 1, 2, 3 or 6 month block[change source]

I am hereby asking that my indefinite block, be changed (or commuted) to an indefinite block
If yes, then please consider a provision, to allow me - on my talk page - to submit (or give) a finite number of article stubs.
I accept that it was wrong for me to mention any matters on Jimbo's talk page.
If this thread has any wiki-shyster/ wiki-lawyer material, then all I can say is that,
I am trying to communicate Simply, and to the best of my abilities.
Do I think that I can be unblocked at wiki, this year?
A full unblock is unlikely, and for now, a dozen (and growing, perhaps,) wikipedians have indirectly voiced,
that "Simple can not have history repeat itself with me".
(So, if I was to continue to do the same as i did before I was blocked,
then there might be no good reason to unblock me. That I realize.)
Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Request that one should Ban me[change source]

I think it would have been to my advantage, if I had asked for a finite block.
I didn't. And know one has asked that I be banned.
Is it fair to say, that voices are saying that I should be banned, in part, for allegedly using Jimbo's talk page,
as a soapbox?
I disagree with a ban, in part because the strongest measure (block) had not been used against me on "Simple".
I must remember not to wiki-lawyer, if I am later asked to reply to something, in this thread.
Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sju hav: while you are blocked, the only thing you may use your talk page for is to request an unblock. (The same is true when a person is banned.) If you use it again for anything else, including anything related to article content, you will lose your ability to change your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

From Sju hav: To not use for other things, except unblock request.
Got it.
Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked[change source]

I hereby ask that one administrator unblock (from indefinite block).
I am not saying that the intention (for me) would be that another administrator (or the same) immediately blocks me for the same infractions, I have been convicted of: Writing on someone's user talk.
I am not saying that my (then) block, thereafter should be 6 weeks or 6 months or 6 years, or whatever (defined) period that an admin (then) chooses.
Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to be unblocked so I can edit reasonably on the "Continental shelf" article. It seems like the article does not mention environmental problems there, such as the dumping of toxic waste there in the 1970s and earlier; in 2017 fishing of (all sizes of) Atlantic halibut (a species of fish) was stopped in one area off the Norwegian coast, because the Atlantic halibut had too much toxins, in one area in the sea off of Norway; one knows in what area the fish are most contaminated, but one does not know the source of contamination [10].
Companies from at least 2 countries were caught for unauthorized dumping of chemicals in that area.
In addition, Simple-wiki has no article about the location Sklinna - only one wiki has an article about Sklinna. Sju hav (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition, I would also like to improve the article about one of the most famous political protesters among pro football players in the US.
The article does not say what he is most famous for. Sju hav (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to be unblocked so I can start an article about U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present), if that is considered an important topic. Sju hav (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sju hav, the correct way to request unblocking is to use the {{unblock}} template. Be aware that I am asking for a resolution to the ban proposal before a response to any unblock request. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A friend[change source]

Hello Sju hav, I see you try to help, but you are banned. I can also see that you have bad English. If you need some help, I can help you. Tell me why you are banned.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And since you cannot use your talk page for many purposes, Email me or give a short reply only about the ban and unblocking request(why you should be unblocked). --Navinsingh133 (talk)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 18:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 00:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)