User talk:TheSwedishEditor

September 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sjö (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and it is valid. However, it would be more constructive to also issue a warning to the other involved parts in this "edit war". It is not one side against another, please try to be more diplomatic and just in your issue of warnings and continue to encourage discussions in the future, not only to one, but all involved parts/sides. I don't think this is the way to go to give all blame to one part. Nonetheless, a discussion is now opened.

Best regards, TheSwedishEditor TheSwedishEditor (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

It is you that need to seek consensus for your proposed changes at the talk page, not retainers of status quo. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your message.

I would like to clarify that I have been editing in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies — particularly WP:V (Verifiability), WP:RS (Reliable Sources), and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The edits I made were fully sourced, based on multiple reputable references, and aimed at improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article.

However, the sources and referenced material I added have been repeatedly removed without explanation or proper discussion, most recently by GlowstoneUnknown. I did not initiate this content dispute — GlowstoneUnknown did, by reverting well-sourced contributions without providing a clear edit summary, rationale, or engaging on the article’s talk page.

Per WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss), once a good-faith edit has been reverted, the next step is discussion to achieve consensus. I have encouraged that multiple times, suggesting that any disagreements over the content or reliability of specific sources be discussed transparently on the talk page. Unfortunately, this has not happened.

If GlowstoneUnknown or any other editor believes the sources I included are unreliable, misrepresented, or need further clarification, they should start a proper talk page discussion rather than repeatedly removing referenced material. This is especially important since the edit in question included multiple credible sources that meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards.

I am fully open to collaboration and consensus-building, but Wikipedia’s policies require that removals or reversions of sourced content be explained and justified, not simply undone. Therefore, I would appreciate it if GlowstoneUnknown could explain their rationale for the removals and participate in constructive discussion so that we can resolve this matter in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thank you, TheSwedishEditor (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has not been bold–revert–discuss. You have initiated the content dispute by repeatedly adding the same kind of content that has been removed by at least @Sjö ([1]), @ZlatanSweden10 ([2]), @GlowstoneUnknown ([3]) instead of starting the discussion you refer to. Please revert your latest addition and start a discussion on the talk page instead. But I don't see the situation has changed; the sourcing hasn't improved for the statements you have added, it is still WP:PRIMARY and/or a Bachelor thesis. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I understand your concerns, and I want to clarify that my intention has never been to edit war or ignore prior feedback. My recent additions were made in the understanding that the sources used are relevant and help reflect viewpoints already present, particularly regarding democratic socialism. I agree that discussion is the best way forward, and I’m open to a talk page discussion to review the sources and wording together if anyone wishes to do so. Let’s focus on resolving this collaboratively and keeping the discussion constructive and academically grounded, rather than removing sourced material simply because it may not align with personal preferences.

Kind regards, TheSwedishEditor (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have three edit warring notifications here and you continue... Your intention is to edit war. Several of the reverts have described the problems with the sources (WP:PRIMARY) and encouraged you to start a discussion for the addition. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is not to edit war (as in fact I try to improve the page with the lite spare time I have, just like any other user, and currently have no time for this types of conversations with a "blame game" that I cleraly see you want to start with your intentions and tone in your comments). If that was the case, I would not have looked up further sources in the first place. I can start a discussion page no problem, even though you are removing sourced material (still I dont see the reason, you don't like the source?). And in that case, where is the source for the current ideology? I agree that it also is correct, but if you really want to stick to "sourced materials" you should also remove it or find a source for it to keep consistancy with your claims against me and my edits. If you want to take part in an academic discussion in the future feel free to do so.

I will still wish you a pleasent day mate :)

Kindest regards, TheSwedishEditor (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy is sourced in the lead of the article and discussed over multiple paragraphs in "Ideology, political impact and history". The reason for removal of the content from the infobox is that they are low quality (primary et cetera) for the type of information, that infoboxes should not introduce new statements (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), and the unwillingness to discuss reverted additions on the talk page, instead edit warring. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an more academic explanation - will find more reliable sources then and start a discussion page regarding it when I have more time than currently. Hope you will be able to wish a nice day to another person as well mate :)

Have a great day and thanks for the explanation

Kindest regards, TheSwedishEditor (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]