On what basis did you claim that my edits were socialistic perspectives? And explain why my edits were not suitable for lede, when it is just introducing the concept of ownership as the article should in its opening.
Adityaverma8998 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should be an overview of the article and reflect what is in the body of the article. It should not introduce new information, and what information is there should be presented in an accessible way. Sjö (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a point. On what basis did you make the claim that my edits were socialistic perspectives and therefore biased? Just because the name of the book is Socialism, on that basis?
Second Point
What part of it is "new information"? My edits were just expounding on the topic of ownership in such a way that was very accessible and introductory. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That ownership is only related to economic goods is a questionable view and I believe not the general opinion. The differentation between legal, sociological and economic ownership is less problematic, but the reasoning about "having" seems to be specific to this particular philosopher. And it is absolutely not accessible. However, if you think the text should be included I think that you should start a discussion about the addition at Talk:Ownership. My talk page is not the place to discuss article content. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even thinking before replying?
What is written at the very initial of the article?
"possession of property that may be any asset tangible or intangible".
What property do you know that does not have an economic value? Property is an asset be it in control of an individual or the government or state, and therefore an economic good. Most, if not all property is an economic good.
And you said "reasoning of having seems unique to that particular philosopher"?
My edit just talked about possession, and that possession of something does not mean that the possessor has the ownership of it. Example - A thief stealing something does not make the thing its, and that the law recognises this. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are discussing article content. This is the wrong place. Take it to the article talk page. Please stop posting here. Sjö (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my edits and now you are telling me to go to talk page and yalk there? Yes thats the best dodge i have ever seen. I dont think you will address any points I made. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. Glad to see you've seen the article, which doesn't show any signs of notability as the sources only have one line mentions. What do you think? I've warned the editor about falsely labelling edits as fixing typos. Doug Wellertalk13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a quick Google search to see if there was any reliable source about the scholars and archaeologists claim, and I got lots of hits to religious sites. Going back, I can see that there seems to be no reliable sources at all in that search. I think that the article at least qualifies for a PROD. Sjö (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It now has only one source as Newsweek is not longer considered reliable so I removed it.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present). See Rephidim, a pretty bad article. One source there is bad but interesting as it says it might not be able to identify it. Then there is Mount Horeb. Again not an RS, [1], I tried this search of Google books [2] but to my horror I found I've messed up my display and I can't read previews. Everything has a blue background and I only see partial bits. Anyway, stopping now for my treadmill work. Doug Wellertalk15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were correct there, I tried using ctrl+F to look for "welfare chauvinism", but none. Maybe from the text to the left beside template of information where it mentions it is a welfare chauvinist party. 75.113.159.27 (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have been watching this editor user:Alexwolf258 who has been spamming the page List of snipers despite of you reverting his edit on the page, please have a look at this!! I was very tempted to give him a warning on his talk page but thought to inform you instead as you can handle it more better, cheers!!!
Spider1217 I think I don't want to get involved in that dispute. There are a lot of dubious information about snipers, so it comes down to if the sources are reliable. It is clear that Alexwolf258 has been edit warring, so you could warn him about that if you want to. Sjö (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask if it exist a new and updated source for the knowledge of european languages in all countries of European Union? Is it possible add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.181.146 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source doesn't look like it includes all languages, but if you can find the original report maybe you can use it in the Knowledge section. Please note that you changed the section about official languages in your last edit, and offical languages are different from knowledge of languages. Sjö (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the source is of 2012 or 2016. It said "Technical Specification" (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2016, in Europeans and their Languages (PDF). Special Eurobarometer 386 (Report). European Commission. June 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2016.". Maybe, it isn't so up to date I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.19.140 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
