Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 18 September 2017

Hi AadaamS,

Can you explain why the History Matters website is not a reliable source?

Yo deleted my contribution based on the website that I used. Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the site? Mythdestroyer 09:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See my edit comment and if you wish to discuss it please do so on the talk page of the article. AadaamS (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the source was reinserted. I removed it again. - Location (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

As per the discussion here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Arrested_v._detained. The lead should either say arrested or detained. Please change your recent addition of 'captured' to one of the terms for which there was consensus.

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed over on the Kaga article that you felt the article had a bit of an issue, and someone responded "well, it has a perfect 5 rating." I hadn't noticed that voting option so I rated it based on how I felt, I encourage you to go give it a vote too. Kaga votey link

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bachelor party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Trafficking

Nickel–metal hydride battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chevron

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, want to help out with HSBC and money laundering aspects?

Hi, I'm writing to relatively recent contributors, including on the talk page, and asking if they want to help out. I still think there's a fair amount of work with this whole money laundering aspect, not that we've made mistakes, but rather in terms of making a good article better. For example, I think officials of the U.S. Justice Department have directly said they did not want to punish HSBC harder and risk the bank losing its license---because of risk of major economic disruption.

If you have time, please, jump in and help. We can probably very much use your help. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Using RFC template

You seemed a little unsure about how to use the RFC template so I thought I'd drop in and give a little advice. First and foremost, your RFC is in the "unsorted" category, which not everyone watches. You typically want to give it some sort of category with templates like this: {{rfc|pol|reli}} . This would include it in the list of politics related RFCs as well as the list of Religion related RFCs.

Second, there are lots of RFCs floating around out there, and user time is very limited. In order to get responses, you should really do all the work for us. This means explaining the dispute as neutrally as possible, and describing both sides to the best of your abilities. Sometimes this might not be possible if you're dealing with bad faith editors, but try to assume good faith until it is extremely obvious that good faith is absent. Additionally, you should include diffs of the dispute, for convenience. In longer and more complicated disputes, dozens of revisions are possible, after edits, partial reverts, and modifications are made. Sorting through this after a dispute has been raging for weeks is a nightmare, so diffs are always a welcome sight.

Finally, your efforts to resolve this dispute were limited to edit summaries. This is bad form, on both your parts. An RFC should not be the first and only comment on the talk page. You should attempt to resolve conflicts on your own before starting an RFC, starting with the article talk page. If that isn't seen, send the editor a message on their talk page, inviting them to discussion. Remember to assume good faith, most of my recent disputes have been the result of editors assuming bad faith in me, or I in them. Believe it or not, most people are here to improve the encyclopedia. Start a discussion and try to keep a cool head explaining why you think your position is correct. Paragraphs on a talk page can be much more persuasive than a sentence or two in a revert, which is seen by many as a slap in the face.

Hope that helps. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that was my mistake. I thought that the first sentence Talk:Honor_killing#Sweden_section_-_relevance was part of the RFC. Usually RFCs get their own section, though it isn't required. Also, I didn't see the messages on that user's talk page. You did mention it, but I forgot as I was writing my response, my bad. It seems to me that you have been more than patient with this user. They still have not responded on their talk page. This behavior strongly suggests to me bad faith POV pushing. User that demonstrate cynical behavior such as this merely count reverts per day and per user to skim under the WP:3RR. If two users are reverting him, as is the case here, he will either have to resort to dialog or silently concede. Let's leave the RFC open for a week and if there are no responses from him, or an overwhelmingly one-sided response to the RFC, as I expect, then we can close it. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High-speed rail may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Railway Gazette

Hello Aadaams. Thank you for your support during the edit war. Now, my mail to RG seems to have been usefull (I said they harm to reputation and image of SNCF TGV) as they finally update their article :) world-speed-survey-2013. I hope that, now, other editors will be more prudent even with "reliable" sources. What about your WP:RFC now ? Regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour! No problem. When you started to bring in more sources and your opponents kept going on about one single source instead of finding more, I decided whom to side with. I've seen similar debates before and the one who is in favour of bringing in outside arbitration or the one that seeks more sources to support his claim usually prevails. When the others did not respond to my suggestion of outside arbitration and made excuses for not finding more sources I had a good guess what was going to happen. Unfortunately the updated RG article does not seem to have ended the edit war and that a great disappointment to me. As for the RfC, I'll try to cancel it somehow. I think you should thank Z22 as well as he supported you, I don't want to steal credit from him. Cordialement, AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I just thanks also Z22 for his help, as you suggested. The edit war seems (at least) finished, as the remained sentence hasn't been edited for 3 days (despite this sentence is near nonsenses and without relationship with its chapter). There is also another risk of "war edit" about the Spanish disaster.

Unfortunately, the same guy now attempt to attack and remodel the "Land speed record for railed vehicles" page...

Best regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello AadaamS. I'm sorry to disturb you again, but could you help me again to maintain the neutrality of the Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles page ?

I'm afraid that the same guy "Bobyrayner" with its propaganda and misinformation try to make a new edition war, and he knows the mysteries to convince administrators against me. Unfortunately, I don't know theses tricks. And after its "loose" on the "High Speed Rail" page, he now attacks the "Land Speed Record Page".

If I'm again alone against this guy, administrator will again take sides for him. Could you help to denounce its actions to the administrators ?

Thanks. --FlyAkwa (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour FlyAkwa, I think the reason that administrators side with your opponent is that while he indeed at times fail to adress valid points by those who oppose him, he doesn't launch into personal remarks. For instance he never agreed to bring in outside arbitration for the last dispute, or even to discuss the quality of Google Maps as a reliable source on geography. You on the other hand, while you do make good points, you also start calling people trolls and "chinese train fans". At one point you even implied that our differences of opinion of the section naming in HSR article was that I was stupid. I can't say for certain that this is why the administrators take side with him since I am myself not administrator, but if I was one, it could be a reason if I was reading quickly through talk pages and didn't go deep into the issue. If you wish to prevail again, instead of coming at others with accusations of bias ("you're a troll") or lacking mental agility, you should stick to criticising their sources and their edits only. There are WP guidelines about this, see WP:DNIV and WP:APR. Invoke wikipedia guidelines on where they apply to make your arguments. (this is the strategy I try to follow) Right now I don't have the time to get involved in another edit war, sorry. This might change later in the week. Good luck! Cordialement, AadaamS (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts to try to end the edit warring on High-speed rail page. Now that the issue is closed. I have a high hope that we will continue to see it as closed. Z22 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Z22 this is my first barnstar and it is great to know that my efforts are appreciated! AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R-77 (missile), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exfoliation (cosmetology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colgate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of whistleblowers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

hey.

Rafale's Malaysia intertsered but.i read it the wrong sorces.that's why i put the real Sorces.Don't Say It124.13.234.53 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Research Invitation

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Misplaced Pages. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roebling (River Line station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Single-track (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! are you planning to participate or should we proceed without your input? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Guy Macon:, I am not planning to participate so go ahead. AadaamS (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson

Hi there,

Yes you did something for which I was legitimately thankful for, removal of poor prose or "How to" advice. However, I think that several of your deletion nominations are misguided. I am not trying to judge you or anything, but those two S&W revolvers are very notable as two of the most powerful handguns ever made. Their power threshold has eliminated many other models from the marketplace such as the Savage Strikers, Thompson Center Contenders, Encores and Remington XP-100s which were single shot or bolt action pistols chambered in high powered rifle cartridges. Those 2 revolvers by S&W have been met with such demand for Silhouette shooting and handgun hunting that the demand for the others has pretty much vanished. Why carry what is essentially a chopped down rifle with no stock that beats you up when you can get the same power factor from a 5 shot revolver that is more comfortable to shoot and carry? There are sources out there and if you are an astute scholar of google you should know that they supress sources pertaining to firearms as part of their misguided antigun policy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I am not an active shooter myself and haven't fired a gun since the mid 90s, so I can't really comment on the quality of that firearm. I am still interested in discussing the sourcing for it, though. What must I do to find better sources on firearms with Google? If had found sources that prove market impact of this firearm that would have stopped me from nominating in the first place. AadaamS (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I can swamp the article with offline published sources if that would make you happy. Fortunately, google does not hold a monopoly on the world's knowledgebase.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike, yes of course, offline sources are as good as online sources. I was hoping there would be settings in Google that I could have tuned. AadaamS (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish I could help you out on that, my friend. I know of no setting that can help you. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DS

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Please excuse this notice, I am alerting recent participants at Homeopathy. Manul ~ talk 23:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illegal immigration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary behavior

In June 2014 did you add approximately ten requests of inline reference in the Copenhagen S-train article. Extremely overdone (why?, when?, how? who? etc - all in less than 8 lines). Please try instead to help Misplaced Pages to improve by looking for references - which you as Swedish and highly educated ought to be able to to. I found support for each of your complaints within less than two minutes. The flag and a few examples had been fully sufficient. This is not a formal complaint, but please try to limit questions in the text when you feel sources are called for. We do actually have common readers of our articles. And to them does this form of questions seem strange. Also - over time is the use the talk-pages more constructive 83.249.172.121 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Especially since we have common readers it is important to make it clear when WP strays from merely stating the facts into the realm of as-yet unsubstantiated speculation. It is important that our readers read with a critical eye. At the time I was rather suggesting, in a roundabout way, that speculation about future plans which may never come to pass is not a good source of content for an encyclopedia. That's what train enthusiast blogs are for. I think WP and especially train articles on WP should simply stick to the facts which answer questions like: How do the trains run? Where do they go? Part of that section read like a discussion, rather than informative prose. I don't know what your native language is, but let me tell you that googling for Danish sources when I only have a Swedish keyboard isn't at all likely to yield quality results. Rather than only criticising me, you should criticise the editor who wrote that section in the first place. AadaamS (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammar and respect for sources

Both of your recent edits to Anthroposophy resulted in ungrammatical phrasings. Please be a little more careful in this regard.

Also: you removed material cited to high-quality published sources. If you doubt the value of these, it would be better request further sources (which I have now provided)--there are a variety of citation templates available to request this--rather than removing well-cited text without providing countervailing evidence. HGilbert (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Harbour vs Port question

Hello, AadaamS ! Since I'm not native in the English language have I wondered about "What is a port and was is a harbour ?". I asked a nice British contributor, who explained (largely) that generally a harbour can have several ports, but not the other way around. Hence did I use the expression "harbour to harbour" in the case of HH Ferry route. You have contradicted this. And therefore am I kindly asking if you are absolutely certain that "port to port" is better. Perhaps you could enlighten me even further, in my native language (Scanian accent Swedish) we have only "hamn" and in Danish (which I also know well) "havn". All well & cheers Boeing720 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you aswell is Swedish (Hejsan !), by the way. But my question remains. I'm uncertain myself. But as I've understood it, is a harbour in general larger (or atleast as large as) a port. Boeing720 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt our barbarian native tongue lacks the vocabulary to make the distinction between harbour and port and it seems even the port and harbour articles are contradictory on the subject. AadaamS (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Misplaced Pages:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Misplaced Pages:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Talk:Paul J. Morochnik

Did you mean to nominate the talk page for deletion? I rather suspect that you actually meant to nominate the article, in which case you beed to redo the nomination properly per WP:AFD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AadaamS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello.

My apologies if I am disturbing, but I wonder if you would be willing to check through the reference lists that I have posted in the following talk sections, in order to see if any of them are useful to incorporate into these or other Misplaced Pages pages.

I would greatly appreciate if you would be willing to insert the most useful ones into appropriate articles.

Thanks in advance for any help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_terrorism#Various_important_statistics_and_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jihadism#Various_important_statistics_and_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamism#Various_important_statistics_and_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:European_migrant_crisis#A_few_new_relevant_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:European_migrant_crisis#A_new_study_about_German_media

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Immigration_and_crime

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Immigration_to_Sweden#An_updated_list_regarding_the_situation_in_Sweden

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Crime_in_Sweden#An_updated_list_regarding_the_situation_in_Sweden

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:No-go_area

David A (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @David A: I must encourage you to read the enWP guidelines on WP:RS and make the edits yourself using the sources you have found to be worthy WP:RS. Editing wikipedia can be borth rewarding and entertaining and I would not wish to rob you of this pleasure. AadaamS (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is more that I work an average of 9 hours a day, 7 days a week as the main bureaucrat for one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis. I have tried to get a hole in my schedule to handle this for months, and failed completely. So, given your interest in these types of articles, apparent focus on facts rather than partisan ideology, and ability to read Swedish, I thought that it might be appropriate to ask you for help. David A (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @David A: it is indeed appropriate to ask for help, but it is equally appropriate for me to say no. I can only regret that you prioritise other commitments above editing Misplaced Pages. If you don't have the time to do the edits you want done, why should anyone else prioritise editing you don't prioritise yourself? AadaamS (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have severe OCD, and have fixated on managing my wiki for the last 3 years. I technically know that it is more important to share valuable information on Misplaced Pages, but haven't found the time to do so lately.

Thanks anyway in any case. David A (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@David A: I can only wish you all the best in all your endeavours, whatever they may be. AadaamS (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

Greetings, I've reverted your edit to Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The news article to which you linked specifies the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, not Ethiopian. Also, I do not understand Swedish and used Google Translate to read it, but the news article doesn't clearly make any allegation about the church spying on behalf of the Eritrean government. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have obviously edited the wrong article. Well, it does make an allegation and I Swedish is my native tongue. Clearly the church community in Sweden are regime sympathisers and the article states that government spies are active in the church. AadaamS (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)