I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SergeWoodzing! I wanted to leave you a message to give you a hug and offer my empathy regarding your frustration at the ANI today. In the thread, I tried to provide a level-headed response and explain where opportunities could have been improved on both sides of the table. However, before I could offer you my personal assistance and diffuse the situation for everybody involved, other responses were posted on the ANI that were absolutely not constructive or acceptable from a participant at ANI, and they made the situation much much worse (the opposite of what I was trying to do). I completely understand your frustration today, as well as the fact that the ANI thread left you feeling even more frustrated, even more attacked and criticized, and with your feelings left completely ignored.
Speaking on behalf of the administrators and experienced editors that participate at ANI: ...we are expected to assume good faith, listen to both sides of the story, diffuse the situation, offer a level-headed and local analysis of the situation without jumping to conclusions or taking sides, and do our best to make sure that the discussion ends with everyone involved feeling satisfied and listened to. I feel like this did not happen in your ANI discussion today. And for that, I'm very very sorry, and I feel very disappointed that you were treated the way that you were. While I feel that the discussion started off in a fair manner, and with fair statements made, it certainly did not end this way. We missed an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership and maturity that comes with being an experienced editor, and we failed at our job.
I encourage you to take some time, let emotions and frustrations cool down, and allow yourself to move on and (hopefully) take some part of this (even if it's very small) and see it as a positive learning experience. I also want you to know that my talk page is always open to you, and that you're more than welcome to message me if you want to talk, if you have concerns that you want to express, or if you need someone to help you with anything. I promise that I will treat with respect and I will do my best to help you with anything that you need regarding Wikipedia. I hope you have a good weekend, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you falsely accuse others of OWNing an article with no proof ("You yo not own this article") I will happily file a report on you at ANI. there is no OWNership here, but there is some disrtuption caused by uncivil editors making false accusations. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided is probably not a lasting source, since that list in the margin will have him bumped down pretty soon. Any other more reliable source at hand? His fame should have garnered some attention by media. Strangnet (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that's an official site of the City of Stockholm. If the city of Stockholm says he died on May 1st, he died on May 1st, and that's reliable. And this belongs on the article's talk page, not here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the official web site of Stockholm, which is stockholm.se. And the data is retrieved from an external service called Ratsit. --Strangnet (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: this belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Please do not continue it on my talk page, it does not concern me personally. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commoner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royalty. 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.
You added a partial citation to Faust Landmark that does not enable readers to find the book. The title is incomplete, the author is missing, and the ISBN is invalid. Can you please complete the citation? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title of that book of memoirs is complete, exactly like this: "Det var en gång ...". The author's name is not missing, it's Carl Johan Bernadotte. The correct ISBN is 91-0-046018-4, which was the victim of 2 typos on my part. Sorry! Thank you for pointing that error out to me! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems that you take prince Bernadotte very personell.we did not have any "issue". We discussed if the source was good or not. You did not agree with us, although we gave good reasons. Of course you have the right to ask others to say their opinion, and that was good. By doing so you saw that those people also thought like we did... Which means that we were not wrong, and then it was not an issue. By writing "other neutral users" all the time makes it very personal against the first users who objected against that specific source. You writes very nice not to write personal on the talk pages, but by writing that way you do it your self. And yes, I am neutral. Adville (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you were right, and I was wrong about how that source was cited.
I will continue to ask for neutral comments, which I find the most helpful to all of us, whether or not you choose to take offense at that, which I think most anyone else can see is not what I intend. It's one of the cornerstones of progress on English Wikipedia, as far as I have seen and learned: neutral comments - asking and waiting for them.
If it is so important to you to keep rubbing it in that all you Swedes (since "we" is what you write) were right and I was wrong in this case, I must tell you that at this point in time I find it (1) extremely (!!!) tiresome and (2) uncessarily aggressive of you to keep repeating that in different wordings, time and again. Please stop it! I'm sure you don't agree, but I'm telling you how I feel, and you can only change that by getting off my back. As I've just recently been through quite a traumatic ordeal on svWP, of which you are very much aware, and which damaged me psychologically, I'd appreciate it very much if you'd leave me alone for a while now, 100%. Is that too much to ask of you? I won't stalk you, harass you or look for any arguments with you at all, and I hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to be kind to me now. I'd sleep better at night, that's for sure.
Hello, SergeWoodzing. 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 Wikipedia 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.
Here you added a reference in the middle of the first sentence. What fact do you believe this reference is supporting? Right now, it is not clear. --JBL (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would like to thank you for your understanding about the questions you had with Acirams edits.I really ment that you did correct to go to other users to get it solved instead of risking a conflict that no one would be a winner in.
Because you have been a long time contributor on svwp I also want to tell you the sad news that Obelix (talk·contribs) passed away two weeks ago. I know you had your arguments, but I think you should know. Best regards, Adville (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and thank you. I'm still in touch with my watchlist on svWP so I knew that sad news. I had very good cooperation with Obelix for a while and corresponded with him by e-mail and then things turned very sour. I think several people at svWP assumed politcal things about me that made it hard for us to get along, and since I've never belonged to any politcal party or movement, trying to just be a humanitarian and an old hippie, that's so unfortunate. I condole the sorrow among his many friends, and sincerely (not sarcastically) hope that what's there about Lars Jacob in Christer Lindarw's new book didn't contribute to his unhappiness.
I can assure you that what happened between you two before you left svwp has nothing to do to with him leaving us far to early. That was off-wiki causes, while the wiki gave him strength to stay as long as he did with us.
I looked at Arne Klum. I'm almost ashamed that it took two readings for me until the name Mattias Klum rang a bell for me. As a former science teacher I have seen a lot of his photos. I did a few small corrections, but can you tell me more what you think needs to be improved.
Thank you again! I'm glad then, that his intense work on WP helped him for a while.
I just now read the recent discussion about me on svWP and frankly, I feel a bit sick, as if I had "reported" A here only for adding sources, and as if she needed to ask you all several times to inform admins here that I'm blocked there because of my work on "history articles". There too, I very much appreciated your input. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you, because you didn't do anything this time. That's why I told the enwp-admins we two had had a discussion, so they know that before they read. Then it was easier to understand. The Swedish royalties have been a great deal of discussions on both enwp and svwp between you and a few other users (me just a little bit in the end about that source, because it came up during KAW, else I am not writing anything about them at all). Because of this some users feel not so very well to discuss with you, but they do good edits. The question now is how to solve this interaction problem between you and the others. When that is done there might be a chance to start discussing a removal of the ban on svwp. (there were some other issues too, as you know) I have been mediator in a cause like this before on svwp between two editors. It was solved and both are still very active, but no more issues between them. As you know some people have had special agreements for a while after a block (our late friend Obelix is an example of that)... What I mean is that there could be solutions in the future to solve things to the better for all parts. Maybe a little to early right now (your photos are discussed on Tostarpadius discussion right now), but later. The main thing is not you coming back to svwp, but that you and Aciram can edit in the same articles without any of you feels afraid. That you think the same about the use of sources etc. Not you or Aciram shall feel bad about the other (like both now have done in this specific case, which made you understand how Aciram feels about you. Tht is no good feeling, and it is not fun for you to know - how can we change this, is the question). (Sorry if I interfere too much here writing like this) - Best regards, Adville (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere thanx, Adville, but new surprises like this aren't going to help here, and harassment like this (one of several examples today) that is still going on, does not make me feel interested at all in returning to svWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I reverted scrap on your and user Dnm:s page. I do not know how to make someone hide it. My opiion is it should be. I just wanted you to know that about Dnm too, so you do not miss that page when you tell the right person. Best regards, Adville (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone checked Crompton 2009 for the sources the author uses for the rather sweeping statement "modern biographers generally consider her to have been a lesbian, and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime"? And since when is a person's sexuality the result of an opinion poll? I hasten to notice that everything else in the relevant section is innuendo or suspicion, so that it is really Crompton that it all hangs from. In any event, I have boldly moved Christina's own declaration to the top, as the standard nowadays with regard to sexuality is that it does not matter what other people think, it matters what you declare. See: Manning, Jenner. I hope this is not offtopic to you. I just don't have access to the Crompton book. Thanks, and happy new year. XavierItzm (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Serge ! May I ask , have you (also, like me) been more or less thrown out of Swedish Wiki ?
And may I copy your template to my page ? By the way, Jacob Truedson Demitz, appear to have had some controversies with Swedish wiki as well.
see the Gallery part of Swedish Wikipedia, there is a picture of him. And it seems like he had some kind of discussion with them, in Stockholm 2010.
Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template was not created by me, but someone tipped me off and I added it immediately.
The person you mentioned has complained several times about the lack of conflict resolution methods (and interest) and the absence of rules against harassment and outing on svWP. I think that's why they hate him there and have blacklisted him and several other people they know or think are involved with him. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below)
The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.
This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
Progress report:
In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogyconnect
(In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial)
This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
Request:
In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well as taking new, important steps towards a creation of a new project site, we need to make communication between the users easier and more effective.
At Mail list on meta is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia email list. In order to request the creation of such a list, we need your voice and your vote.
In order to create a new list, we need to put a request it in Phabricator, and add a link to reasoning/explanation of purpose, and link to community consensus. Therefore we need your vote for this now, so we can request the creation of the mail list.
Read more about this email list at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project mail list where you can support the creation of the mail list with your vote, in case you haven't done so already.
This is the fourth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
Mail list is created:
The project email list is now created and ready to use!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Roberts. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Princess Kristine Bernadotte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royalty. 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.
This and this are what I can find at the moment about Birgitta's religion, plus the assumption that back then one could not be married in a Roman Catholic church without converting (today you can). I've read somewhere reliably, and more specifically that she converted, but I can't put my finger on it right now. Remove it if you can't find a specific source. Two queens of Sweden have been Roman Catholics, and when Birgitta converted she was not eligible for the throne so the matter was not important to the king or government. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if she converted I do not think she could have kept her Royal Highness "status", the ones her sisters lost when they did not marry royal. I can't believe the court, king or their fans would let converting go, but enforce the marrying royal thing. Citation needed is fine until sources are found. From newspapers at tidningar.kb.se you can see it was commented and discussed at the time and she did write her memoirs so there should be sources..--LittleGun (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Queens Desideria and Josephine remained royal Majesties in Sweden though they were Roman Catholics I think Birgitta would have been allowed to remain a Royal Highness there - throne inheritance was not involved anyway, and that's the only part where religion comes into it. The Bernadottes were all Roman Catholics before 1810. We have so few precedents because there have been so few Swedish princesses, if any before, who married Catholic princes. You are right though to expect anything, good or bad, from "the court, king or their fans". Lots of inconsistent and weird policies and practises. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her youngest sister does no longer use any royal title. Only that she is a part of the Royal Family. "Fru Magnusson". (Stated by herself in a reliable TV-program, a few years back.) Doubt if her sisters care much more about their titles nowadays. There's also the matter of Prince Sigvard or not Prince, he was punished for his marriage, thrown out of the Family by his father, Gustav VI Adolf, but insisted to keep his title. But he was a generation older than the "Hagasessorna". Boeing720 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigvard (Prince Sigvard Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg) kept both the titles of nobility (also Prince Bernadotte) which his granduncle Oscar was given in 1892 by the government of Luxembourg, and which he himself was given by the same gov't in 1951, but he didn't insist on Prince Bernadotte being used in Sweden until 1983, which the current king, shamefully, never acknowledged. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be very well enlightened about Sigvard. Although I'm not much for the royalties, and even less so, regarding the gossip about them, was this interesting reading. And as you mention it, do I totally agree that the king has treated his uncle in a very shameful manner. Unforgiving and without respect for the prince's age. Did you know that he once, during a speech to the population of Arboga, greeted the crowd with the words "Kära örebroare..." or something like "Dear people of Örebro..." ? I think it was in the early 80's.
But Karl XVI Gustav have at least once managed to get at least my sympathy. And this was when media chased him for comments about his (alledged) adultery, in the middle of the moose/elk hunt in which the king participated. His astonishing first and only comment was a brief reply to a journalist. And he simply said (approximately) "Ja detta var en tråkig händelse som vi får lägga bakom oss !" or "Yes, this was a dull/dreary event, which we now must put behind us !" In one single sentence did he both (in an indirect, but still clear manner) admit to the general allegation , but he also managed put an end to the matter, and those in the tabloids who smelled blood, got none. And the matter has never come up again. Boeing720 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal remarks
I kindly ask you to refrain from making hasty conclusions about the experience of other users, using such assessments (right or wrong) as an argument when discussing an article, and belittling other users' comments (all in contrast to what you did here). /83.227.115.112 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editor background is always an issue on WP and it looks like you have a personal agenda or WP:COI because all you have argued is your personal opinions, which do not coincide with what's normal here. That is the only case where editor background always is relevant. I have only stated facts, and I will oppose any personal agenda you may have without the slightest hesitation. Your complaints here about that are not welcome, now or at any time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does it look like I have a personal agenda? Could you please give an example?
My experience as an editor, or lack thereof, of which you have no knowledge of whatsoever, is not relevant to the article. Neither is your self assessed knowledge about Wikipedia. To call an argument by another editor "rather flimsy" is not nice and totaly unecessary. As an experienced user you should know that this kind of behavior is a breach of the Wikipedia etiquette. I asked you kindly to refrain from that. /83.227.115.112 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Rater flimsy" would not normally be considered a personal attack, but if you took it that way, I apologize. I never intentionally engage in any such thing.
Normally, if an IP use shows up only once - ever - to make big changes to an article, that could lead anyone to assume that the person using that IP has a personal agenda.
I asked you not to come here and accuse me of such things as "a breach of the Wikipedia etiquette". I am asking you again not to do that, and if you so it anyway you will easily be found guilty of harassment. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks !
Hello Serge! I simply read wrong, Sigismund was indeed king of both Sweden and Poland during some years. I read it as if Charles IX had been the same. Boeing720 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I've noticed that you have added quite a few references to the above person here and there. I don't know if you have a personal connection with him or not but you seem to consider him as notable. It looks like these additions, which seeing the lack of proven notability, may be spamming. This is often a technique used by COI editors to create an artificial notability. If you believe that he is notable I would suggest writing an article about him and submitting it for review. This would be a better way of ensuring his presence on Wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am an experienced Wikipedian of more that 12 years standing and I think I know what I'm doing in illustrating certain articles with relevant images from Commons. If you do not think so, in more than one case alone where you want one of your images instead, please feel free to report me, but do not feel free, please, to bring your adminitions, accusations and warnings here. If you do not feel the image at Indian Love Call is relevant, or if you object to my mentioning the names of the 2 individuals singing the song, you should have started talking on the talk page of that article, not here. That's what's normal. Your coming here with this kind of slightly condescending message, to me, is not. I'll be reinstating it after starting talk there about it, where talk about it belongs. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I say and have done and the fact that you have been an editor for 12 years or not is irrelevant and I will revert your edits please discuss and explain why you are adding images of this person in numerous articles. Domdeparis (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the references to this person in the photos that you have added as a middle ground. They have clearly been added to promote this person as per the caption that is spam for him and his amateur cabaret group. I could have removed the photo as being unnecessary to illustrate the subject. Domdeparis (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations are unfair, and what you're doing is removing clearly relavant images and information from articles while on some sort of personal campaign against any mention of a certain individual who was in an image you want to replace at Indian Love Call. Second request: I do not want your unfair accusations here. Please do not use this page again! Whatever we may need to discuss can be discussed elsewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the best place to discuss an issue by a single editor on multiple pages is on the editor's talk page or on mine if you prefer but I will not discuss it on the individual pages as the problem is exactly the same. If you prefer we can take this elsewhere if you refuse to discuss it. Domdeparis (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you were discussing the individial article and image issues, as you have been recommended to do at Commons, that would be fine. What you are doing here can only be taken, by me, as a very unpleasant and discouraging type of hounding, here and at Commons, because you only come here without good faith to make personal accusations, and on the talk pages involved, you are trying to refer every discussion, which should be about article content, to this page so that this will only be about what you are accusing me of. I'm asking you now, for the third time, not to do that anymore, but to discuss the actual issues on the proper talk pages where they should be discussed. Though I don't agree with all of the closer's remarks here, he did nake it very clear to both of us that "this is a content dispute". It is not a user behavior issue. User talk pages are not for content disputes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User talk pages are a great place to discuss editor's actions. As per WP:OWNTALK that states "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively." This is not a simple content problem on a single page but a more global one concerning the way that you edit and use Wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have duly noted that you refuse to use your talk page to discuss your editing with me, I have also proposed to continue on my talk page which is an offer I reiterate. Domdeparis (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not refuse to talk to you or anyone else here or anywhere about anything relevant. I refuse to keep refutung your unfair presumptions and accusations over and over. What's the use of that? If you stop hounding me like a criminal (as I perceive it) and notify me that you've written someting constructive (constructive) on your talk page (no more unfair presumptions, accusations or personal attacks), I will respond. I always respond when people are constructive, if I'm not sick (whch this all has basically made me).
You started all this here on my page, about Emil Eikner, by telling me "you seem to consider him as notable". It is not our job at Wikipedia to decide whether or not anyone is "not notable" enough that his/her name should be clinically removed from the project. A person who is not notable enough for an article (I know about that) is appropriate to mention in article text if the name is relevant there. I'm constantly removing non-notable, non-relevant names, such as the gradchildren of ex-royalty and of other celebs. That's what can be discussed. Relevance! And that's what you have refused to discuss, by ignoring my comments and just continuing to be accusatory, on the talk pages of those articles.
I still feel that an image of 2 people doing a song, especially if at least one of them is notable, in principle is more relevant as the only illustration to an article about that song than any movie poster would be, as that article's only image. Readers have to check that movie's article to know if the song (song article's subject) even was in that movie. That kind of thing should be discussed on that article's talk page, to improve the article, and without overzealous reverts, but not here. It would be interesting to get an RfC on that image/content principle of relevance (not on Mr. Eikner's non-notability, poor man, hope he hasn't seen any of this!), and I may do that there when I feel better than I do right now. I still haven't dared check my watchlist here, having been busy for hours and hours at Commons with all your stuff there, but I can tell you that I'm not looing forward to it and have a stomach ache. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS I can empathetically understand your initial suspicion, though you've gone too far, especially at Commons (as you now can see). The worst is your adding notability tags, without talk, to articles which have been stable for many years and (and) which are quite well referenced to document notability. I must assume you did that in a state of (?). Please remove them! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: It is a well known fact that SW has a extremly strong COI when it comes to these photo, the non notworthy Emil Eikner, Demitz and Southerly clubs. SW continuesless POV-pushing, fals sourcing and blunt COI rendered him permanently banned from Swedish Wikipedia. Look at his user talkpage over there. So you are right about the pictures and SW.Dnm (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I felt unavoidably compelled to comment here on this user, and on Swedish Wiipedia in the 4th paragraph here. It was not pleasurable to feel compelled to make those comments. It is also not pleasurable to see a user back on my talk page who I feel intentionally has hounded me for many years, and the fact that the user knows that, makes it twice so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at the top of this conversation if, as you seem to suggest, Eikner is notable (as per the Wikipedia definition of course) then it would be better to create a page for him rather than wedging photos with links to a sort of biography on commons. Domdeparis (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have never suggested or inferred that. I've added his name in 3-4 places where I honestly, sincerely and in good faith thought it was relevant to an article text, never having professed that there are enough reliable sources upon which to build an article about him. Maybe there will be some day. He's under 40. I could be dead by then. Everybody relevantly mentioned in artcle text does not need to be notable enough for h own article, as I'm sure you actually know very well. But you removed at least one reliabe source where Eikner's name was mentioned, which had motivated his being mentioned in that article text.
And we have fixed the Commons link issue, and that page there, so why bring that up again?
Your choice of words like "wedging" are a part of your continued unfair accusations, which, as I am now informing you for the fifth time, are not welcome here. Will you please stop using accusatory language like that? It's not constructive. I'm trying to cooperate as best I can, here and at Commons. Please stop that part of what you're still doing. Please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
October 2017
Hello, I'm Domdeparis. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Domdeparis (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean your disparaging comments about the article subject's hotel career, I kindly suggest you read up on WP:BLP. Contentious material about any living person is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not as alleged facts, not as personal opinions, not as anything. You should know that. If this particular topic somehow has distressed you and is bringng out the worst in you, why not take a break from it? That's not intended as an accusation, but I really am trying to understand some of your behavior. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Report me if you wish but there is nothing contentious about it. He was a simple front office manager in a luxury hotel as I was myself there is nothing glorious in this you or he may think otherwise but this is not insulting or a personal atteck it is my opinion. Talk pages are supposed to be a discussion between often opposing views. You cannot simply remove what you do not like to read. Also you must disclose your connection with this person as per WP:COI. If you don't I will take this to the COI noticeboard for advice. Domdeparis (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article's entry and what you've read or should have read in these discussions, here, on the article's talk page, and on mine, about the actual positions, make your comments here about them unreasonable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Domdeparis. This and the sometimes stranden way of using sources about Swedish nobles (even here om enwp) was part of the reason for the permanent block there and the deletion of the article. Adville (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just clarify that if someone removes any of the photos that you or others have added that are from the Demitz collection on commons regardless of which article they are on you will not object? In my opinion the addition of any photos here constituts a conflict of interest because the tags refering to Demitz and his cabaret. It is going to take a very long time to clean up this mess and it would be a shame to take 1 step forward and 2 back. You have been promoting Demitz by adding these often superfluous photos for nearly 10 years now. The cleaning up job ahead is gargantuan and I for one do not want to waste time arguing about their removal each time. Domdeparis (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If valuable (to WP) photos have only been taken and/or donated to Commons by him or any of the people he employs and that's the only connection (examples: 3rd photo here and top here), then I think other users than you, neutral ones, should decide those cases since you now obviuosly are heavily biased. Otherwise you'll be discouraging everyone, generally, from contributing the good material they might have and be willing to free up. If any image I'm connected with can be reasonably considered promotional to him or his organization, I will not touch them.
Before I left Swedish Wikipedia last year I made these lists in good faith, to help them decide whether or not I actually had done any substantial harm there. Almost none of all that on those lists has been reverted or addressed at all, meaning that I didn't do any great harm there.
You are continuing to hound me, for no constructive reason, and continuing to make totally unsubstantiated and extremyly serious personal accusations like this which are intended to cause everybody's worry of great harm to Wikipedia, by me, which can not (not) be shown ever to have taken place. Such accustions of yours are grossly exaggerated and I think they constite personal attacks. The time may have come too look at that. I am asking you for the last (ninth!) time to stay off my talk page and stop hounding me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no hounding intended but because your promise to stay off COI articles was vague I wanted to be very clear what it meant. The discussion was closed there so the best way to get an answer from you is on your talk page. I have duly noted that you will not touch any photos that can be reasonably considered promotional to him. I prefer to inform you that all the photos that contain text linking to him and his interests are in my opinion promotional. Thanks for clarifying that and I really hope that I will have no call to come back here again but as I have explained user talk pages are not your personal property and it is legitimate to use them to communicate with users about their editing. You can check the link I gave you about their primary function. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, you now have my e-mail address (and the refs you asked for) so you can admonish and lecture and order me around there there if you wish, but then again that won't have this grandstanding effect.
You need(ed) to learn how Commons works before you go off half-cocked here (and went off there) about things like this. And then read WP:HOUND as directly pertains to the frequency of your appearances here with unsubtantiated accusations and uncalled-for drama. And then read WP:PA as pertains to those false accusations. And then (for the 10th time): stay off my talk page! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop now!
Stop throwing shit on me, like here. Last time it was about sources you know I had right about the poor quality as Other "neutral users" (your words) also said. The one with a bias was proven to be you with your COI. Adville (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are a heavily biased editor when it comes to me and basically all my Wikipedia work. That has been my opinion for a long time. How would your coming here to swear at me change that or help anyone? Why not take a break and let some neutral editors try to wade through all the negative and damaging and biased input from all you angry & ganged up Swedes who (as I see it) are only here with ulterior motives to try to get me blocked and to get one article, which you abhor, deleted? The inordinately massive input from you all (who relatively speaking very rarely are on English Wikiidia ever) is telling in that regard. In any case, you're not welcome here with this kind of thing, whether or not you cuss like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your usual tactics. Try to misscredit everyone ego finds out you are going wrong. The edits you do in articles talks för themself. And no. If you do wrong I write here. Adville (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not helpful to anyone and not to Wikipedia. And stuff like "Try to misscredit everyone ego finds out you are going wrong" isn't even Swenglish and thus makes no sense to me in any language. Don't really care. Go away! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was autocorrect. I ment "everyone who finds out you are doing wrong "... And saying "go away" does not mean anything. Behave instead and concentrate on the subjects. Stop trying to miscredit the user. Adville (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never miscredit anyone unless I've found out first that they are in the habit of quite severely miscrediting others. And I always try my very best to be truthful in every case, which actually is more informative than miscrediting. Now, stop hounding me! You've been doing it for years now, and I'm tired of it, aside from the fact that it has never done anyone or any project any good at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Explain för me how I have been hounding you for years. Everyone who can read can see on this page that I am not hounding you but discussion subjects were we disagree... Just like domdeparis did. Hounding is your way to try to escape from discussions you know you are wrong in, like when I was "hounding you about the bad sources" were the "neutral second opinion users you Called for said I and Enzo dnm were correct. To be correct in a discussion with you is in your writing to "hound you (with that login I am correct now too and you are hiding something...) everyone who reads your discussion will also read that I was medling between you and another user here on enwp where I sided with you and also asked if you wanted me to Medle so you could come back to svwp. You said no. This shows I am trying to do the best for Wikipedia and also make everyone enjoy it here (if the are not COI writing or using bad sources by purpose). Adville (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:HOUND and try to understand policy on English Wikipedia, which greatly differs from what you are used to when it comes to behavior toward other users. No further comment (I dearly hope). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hej
Jag skriver på svenska här nu för att inte alla ska fatta vad vi diskuterar. Jag använder generellt inte mail i kontakt med andra användare här då jag har hört historier om användare som bokstavligt talat tar reda på andras identiteter :) Anyway, jag har förklarat för Sitush min ståndpunkt. Och jag kan absolut skriva längre förklaringar om varför jag röstar på ena eller andra sättet. Ha det fint.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I prefer English (and full transparency) at enWP. I understand, but you have my absolute guarantee on my honor that I will not do that if you e-mail me. I'm not the slightest bit interested in your true identity, only in your talented work here. You can create a new e-mail account in a few minutes for anonymous correspondence, using a fictitious personal name like Inge Naning or Ann O'Nyma.. It's much easier to trace a computer IP here at WP than through gmail. You can also write to me through the e-mail address published at Swenglistic Underground on Facebook here which I'll be checking before bedtime. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh flattering doesn`t .. oh who am I kidding.. it always work for me. :) I will contact you. I see at Swedish Wiki that you might have had a hard time yourself in the past, unfairly so. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlexCab until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
User put this yesterday on h own talk page (my reply there follows h "Request for clarification"):
@Drmies: I am pinging you here so as not to to pollute your talk page. I would like to clear up a couple of things you said that you have no problem with SW's editing but on the COIN you wrote "I don't understand why someone would fill a wall of text and then say "oh yeah I share a computer with this guy"--I mean seriously, no one like that should be writing on that person." You were talking about SW I believe. At the very top of the WP:COI page it says "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.
Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.[6] In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead."
For days SW refused to admit his COI and only did it after a private exchange by mail with someone here if I remember rightly. I took your comment from the COIN page as an administrator to mean that his editing is a problem when it deals with Demitz. I am seriously confused why now you are stating that you do not have any problem with his editing. I'll be honest I took this as an implicit validation to clean up his editing. --Domdeparis (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's good manners to notify somebody you're complaining about, not just the person you're complaining to.
Your quotes from WP:COI are tendentiously selective. We also have "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest."
I've made mistakes, but every single one of my edits has been a good faith edit, especially after the encouraging outcome in the ignored link below, since when I've admitted I took a bit of license in a small amount of cases. I did not ever "seek to influence an affected article's content" in any inappropriate way. I supplied images, sometimes rare ones where one could appreciate their being free and available to us at all, and text which I sincerely felt was relevant and sufficiently sourced, notwithstanding COI and well aware of hundreds if not thousands of COI-produced articles like Mattias Klum.
All that work was intended to benefit English Wikipedia.
Perhaps the administrator has come to that rational conclusion, as several other users have, both over time and more recently.
Perhaps they've seen how many of your suspicious deletion nominations (some highly notable people in there!), here and at Commons, have pooped out.
All you've made me do is feel like leaving Wikimedia projects for good. You've taken everything fulfilling and enjoyable out of any work to be done here. What's the use, I say, when unfair accusations are hurled at one day after day after day?
You've also made a normally cheerful old gentleman feel compelled to write at length in his own name to defend himself. That's the most embarrassing thing you did, besides replying to him that he wanted his own article for the sake of his ego, adding (!) an intimation that he needed a warning about "autobiographical editing". And now you're casting doubt there too, inferring that someone else wrote that. I know for a fact that he sent copies of his passport and driver license to the foundation, because he send a copy of that message to me and to Bishonen. He scanned them where I work
But most importantly, as to your quandry here:
Perhaps the administrator didn't ignore what you've ignored over and over and over (though you had it on day 1) while you go on and on polluting one talk page after another with incorrect claims like "For days SW refused to admit his COI and only did it after a private exchange by mail"?
If that's how the administrator lived up to her adminstrative duty, it would make as much sense to me as it would have made for you not to (1) ignore that link and thus (2) keep repeating the falsehood. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though I've been welcomed several times to discuss maters concerning me on that user's talk page, this one didn't make it. It was all removed with this edit summary: "Please do not edit on my talk page guys I'm only interested in the opinion of the person I pinged" --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmie Kersmo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, SergeWoodzing. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
This is the fifth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
A demo wiki is up and running!
Dear members of WikiProject Genealogy, this will be the last newsletter for 2017, but maybe the most important one!
You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records.
And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2018!
This was on an administrator's talk page until 2018-01-15, and it may make some people feel a bit better to read it now and then:
That Demitz guy
Hello Bishonen ! Long time no see. I don't really understand what has happened with Demitz. Are you about to recreate the article once more ? Perhaps some people cannot differ between Serge and Demitz. 6-7 "voters" had less than 250 edits here. Unfair, doubtlessly. Now swWiki has opened up for further deletions here. The principles were not considered, in my opinion. Thanks for your efforts, and I hope some article can be restored. Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Boeing720. Recreate it? No, I can't do that. Were you reading the deletion log at the redlink Jacob Truedson Demitz? There, you can see me both delete and restore the article on October 16. But all the actions I did there, including the recreation, were purely technical, for the purpose of moving SergeWoodzing's draft over the original article and then merging the histories of the two pages. The only "real" action was by BD2412, who closed the discussion on 23 October and found "substantial consensus" that the article subject didn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and then deleted it. He's right, you know. There was substantial consensus. Speaking personally, I'm pissed off at the amount of notability we demand for people like this, when I compare the kinds of sources we treat as reliable for some types of BLPs, such as say porn stars. I clicked on one BLP at random in the porn stars category, and found that Xbiz, Fangoria, AskMen, the Howard Stern Show, Badmouth interviews, Klixxx.com and Glamourcon are apparently OK sources with a reputation for fact-checking. But Borlänge Tidning and Dala-Demokraten are dubious, "local", etc. That's simply anglocentric. Or maybe porn-aficionado-centric.. grumble. But you know how it goes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS yada yada. There was consensus. And most of the deleters' arguments were, properly, about notability, certainly when they re-posted in the second round. Bishonen | talk08:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John, King of Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Just as a courtesy I wanted to let you know that I mentioned your Keep comment at a discussion over at Bishonens talk page. My rationales for Keep was in question. The main discussion was concerning another editors canvassing though. [2].--BabbaQ (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great work - thank you! Sad to see him gone. I did just a bit of touch-up & added an image I cropped from Commons. Today is Christer Lindarw's 65th birthday - shall we give him a pensionsklapp by bringing his Swedish and English articlee's up-to-date? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, IP 104.163.148.25 continues to throw tantrums over at Bishonens talk page. Everyone else dropped the stick two days ago and the IP joins the discussion to say how terribly angry the person is for others not dropping the stick. Oh the irony :). I have not even thought of the matter for 48 hours.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Öfverholm died yesterday, I've uploaded the only passable facial photo we have of him in the family archives here. Perhaps you'd like to add it to the article there? Confirmation of his death should be in Swedish papers within the next few days, or maybe as soon as tomorrow at Ingenjörer utan gränser.
Now that you did such a good job here on Lindarw, perhaps you'd also like to fix his Swedish article? The lack of sourced info about his very appreciated book and fantastic last show tour is embarrassing. And his retirement from those shows. Best wishes! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna hear something funny?
I actually played Rolf Gruber in a high school production of The Sound of Music over 40 years ago, and I never put together the lyrics to the song with the user name I chose - although I guess I may have picked it making a subconscious connection. Thanks for pointing it out, although I'm dreadfully sorry that the song gets stuck in your head when you see my name: believe me, I know how annoying that can be, and it's not exactly one of Rodgers and Hammerstein's greatest works. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Catchy tune, in my opinion, though the sliding around on "IiiIIii'll take caaAAaare of you" is annoying. Thanx for this interesting message and every good wish. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I wanted to thank you for all the work you've been doing improving articles and joining AfD discussions. I believe there are not enough eyes looking at these articles, and often notable people and topics are getting deleted just because there are not enough people like you willing to research and defend them. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, you are right of course, and I apologize to you and to イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）. I rolled back a minor edit (1 single character, a parentheses) only so I could revert your overly hasty edit. Since your edit to the article, while the discussion was ongoing and had not reached consensus, was not what 3O editors (or any editors) normally do, shall we say we're even? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have no reason to doubt that my apology was sincere or to assume that I'd apologize without agreeing. You do have a reason to apologize yourself for making changes to an article while something was being discussed, especially since you did that as a 3rd opinion ( = neutral) helper. If you mainly want to argue, go away! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SHOUTING is not welcome here, not ever. You know how to do footnotes well, I don't. When I tried to do one, you fixed it. I was grateful. You could have put the translation thingies för Lollobrigida & Bergman in footnotes much easier & faster than coming here to shout demands at me. I am tired of your belligerent attitude. Please stop it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am sorry if I’m just tired of your attitude: you could have asked, but you just deleted it altogether (probably hoping I didn’t notice) because it was easier and you liked it more, didn’t you? All you have to do is enclosing things in a {{efn}} template and adding a {{notelist}} at the bottom of the page. Quite simple, isn’t it? イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）20:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone has been unneccessaily belligerent throughout this disagreement. My attitude has been limited to article content. I have not talked down to you with sarcasm and mastery. If you feel I have, I apologize sincerely. You? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, out of frustration (from what I felt was over-stubbornness on your side) but yes, I did; I am normally not this harsh at discussions. However, put aside the reasons I reacted badly to your recent edits, I apologize too and sincerely hope I will not end up discussing with you again. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）21:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! As a rather experienced Wikipedian, I am aware, but I honestly felt user behavior, as pertaining to that discussion, had entered into it before I alluded to yours. Another misunderstanding? Sorry, if so. I'm actually known for trying my best to avoid any and all mentions of other users on article talk pages. We are there to address & discuss article content, I firmly believe, not each other. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you persist in discussing my behaviour on the article talk page. As I replied there, I am happy to wait until the RM closes, in order to remove what you see as the need to discuss this further there. And then we can discuss any behavioural issues (yours or mine) that still need clarification, in an appropriate place.
But what I am most interested in is your program to eradicate what you see as Swenglish from Wikipedia. This may be a simple mistake (yours or mine) in interpreting Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or a similar misunderstanding. See #Swenglish below. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swenglish
As I have said above, I am concerned that you claim to have corrected hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors[3] similar to your proposed change to an article name. The RM appears to be controversial at least, yet in the same post you claim that your proposed title is irrefutably correct.
Comments on your continued concern: That RM was initially based on what I perceived to be Swenglish from an original dictionary (word for word) translation of Nobelpriset i litteratur to [The] Nobel Prize in Literature, where I felt that for Literature was correct English, whereas I felt that in Literature was very likely based on a mistranslation. Since (the moment when) I asked for that RM, several other editors have enlightened me there about the frequency of use of in, and I am always willing to bow to a clear consensus. My assertion that in is likely to have originated in a mistranslation (probably by the Swedish Academy itself), and then spread to all those other sources, remains my opinion, to which I believe you have conceded that I have a right. From what you’ve written so far on that talk page, I’m not sure if you and I ever would be able to agree that there even is such a thing at all as incorrect English (?). If we could, then I’d have to take the liberty of claiming the right to the personal opinion that prize in Literature basically is incorrect English, regardless (outside of WP) of WP consensus. However that is not irrefutable, as we’ve seen on the article’s talk page, and consensus is all that counts there. My claim that for Literature is "irrefutably" correct only means (as I alluded to in the now closed RM discussion) that the irrefutably correct version cannot reasonably be questioned but the other can, also my opinion, which ergo I claim the right to have. This, according to what the word means, is not to say that an irrefutably correct version is the only viable version, especially for a project where we’ve consensed on things like a queen named Hedwig whose name actually was Helvig or Haelwig and never bore the name Hedwig in the real world. I do not know the Israeli editor who agreed, when supporting the RM we’re still discussing here, and opined that they should all be moved. I do not know any of those users who agreed with me, nor do I disrespect the one who changed h mind.
I can also safely promise you that my Swenglish edits (where even people corrected do not object, and many have thanked me), as well as that RM, primarily are about examples like this: This was under this time what this here the theatrehouse, to exempel, should be used to. ( = Swenglish); At the time, that was what that theater building was to be used for. = irrefutably correct American English; At the time, that was what that theatre building was to be used for. ( = spelling of one word which once was, but no longer is, irrefutably correct only in British English); The use of the building which housed the theater at the time was intended thus. ( = improved English, possible only when time and a bit of thought allows).
So I must ask, are any of these other corrections to hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors soundly based? I am not wishing to discourage your participation here. But I think there are grounds for fearing that some of it may be misguided, and I want to clear that up.
Reply to your first question: Yes. I try very hard not to do any WP editing that is not soundly based. Same applies to many years of professional work, but without disclosing who I am, I cannot refer you to doctoral dissertations & other academic & professional work where I am thanked by name. Shall we correspond by e-mail? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to your second question: OK, it looks like I'm on trial now, but I really don't feel qualified to choose examples for you myself. My user contrib page shows that I almost always make rather comprehensive edit summaries, and you'll find Swenglish mentioned in them now and then. Feel free to browse there for examples! But in order to be able to evaluate that particular work, you'd need to know Swedish, or else be assisted by a fair admin at enWP who does, such as User:Bishonen. You might also ask her whether or not she sees a substantial amount of Swenglish that would be hard for readers of English, who don't know Swedish, to understand. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those replies. Some of them relate to behavioural issues, and I'll address those in #Behavioural issues above.
The question for this section is whether Swenglish is acceptable at all in English Wikipedia, and if so under what circumstances. We seem to have had some disagreements on this. They are in two main areas: Linguistics, and Wikipedia policy.
You are not on trial. But there are questions to discuss, and I hope that you will not object to some use of the Socratic method in this discussion. It is not supposed to be an Inquisition.
In proposing the recent RM that sparked this, you said The "in" is Swenglish, i.e. a dictionary translation without better knowledge of normal English. (Swedish Academy's English and that of the Nobel Foundation, leave much to be desired.) Wikipedia should not endorse a translation error.[4]
Later you claimed Nobel Prize for Literature is (1) sufficiently known and (2) irrefutably correct and (3) does not set a bad example and sabotage the hard work of English teachers.[5] There is much in that post with which I disagree, but I'd like to focus on that part of it for the moment.
That RM has now closed as not moved. I think it's a good close, but obviously it favours my viewpoints. So, can we accept this as a consensus decision, or would you like to discuss that further? Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you've missed where I wrote, quite clearly, about always bowing to consensus, please reread! And then please stop pursuing this unneccessary and repetitive argument you don't seem to want to let go of. I want to end it. Now. Feels more like provocation than anything else. Respectfully (respect is suppososed to be mutual) yours, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...did not develp in Italy. It is very clearly explained in the article that the genre is partly based on commedia dell'arte, which developed in Italy. In fact, modern pantomime has almost no connection with the Italian genre, since modern pantomimes no longer even include the Harlequinade. Furthermore, you have never, as far as I know, contributed a WP:Reliable source to the article that gives helpful historical context. I have been reading every single contribution that anyone has made to this article since at least 2007, and I have also been reading about the genre of pantomime since then in books about Victorian theatre, on the internet and elsewhere. I am confident that the genre is *entirely* British (I am American, BTW), and all "pantomime" performances in every other country (other than those based on the French mime genre) are simply locally-adapted (if at all adapted) copies of British pantomime. No one has *ever* added anything to the article based on a WP:RS, let alone from a credible historian, that shows otherwise. So, I totally disagree with you, and feel confident that you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, anyone who claims otherwise is making a mess, and you should do some research in actual reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean British pantomime which is what that article should be named. For that claim I need research no further than one book among the 800+ (many on theatrical history) here in my bookcases: Webster's New Dictionary Second College Edition, which lists pantomime, as you mean it, as connotation #4. Between us Americans, then, I respectfully suggest you adopt a more neutral (less pro-British) approach in this case, and - emphatically! - that you refrain from coming here to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. We need very experienced and valuable theater editors like you to be fair, not to mention polite. You have the right to your opinions, which I respect. So do I. Do you? Your comment in that edit summary was out of line in that it showed no good faith whatsoever, no common courtesy and minimal comprehension of the subject of the article as incorrectly named. Don't come back here with anything that smacks of insults, and stop writing edit summaries that do! If you're in a bad mood, take a break! There is a life outside Wikipedia, some of it much more scholarly and knowledgeable than consensus here often will allow. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other pantomime than British pantomime (except for the French genre of Marcel Marceau-style mime). This is the same reason why we don't have to call musical theatre "American musical theatre", even though the modern musical was basically developed in America based on various European and American pre-cursors. The tone of the pantomime article is not "pro-British", it is neutral and factual. When one demonstrates that one doesn't have a sufficient background in a subject to talk about it with authority, to say that they don't know what they are talking about is not a value judgement, just an observation. I don't know what I am taking about when I contribute to certain science articles, but that doesn't mean that I can't contribute to them, as long as I have reliable sources. If, however, someone is contributing to the article who does know what they are talking about, I am grateful! I try to make sure that I don't make a mess, and I try to help them rather than making it more difficult for them to keep the article up to date and keep improving it. However, I will try to be polite and sensitive in the future, and I realize that everyone has feelings. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my previous opinions & suggestions, and since you choose to ignore Webster's and many other sources, this discussion about an article that obviously (to me and hoards of others) should be namned British pantomine is going nowhere. I know what I'm talking about in this case. Your snide, disrespctful comments about that are not welcome here. Get it? What American schoolkids learn about what English words mean, as per dictionary, is important to me. If that's not important to you, that's your prerogative. Your comments are often less than courteous. Have a fair look at them! Work on it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I'll try to be polite, and I do not intend to be snide or disrespectful. A dictionary, however, is not a history book by respected historians of a genre. Using an American dictionary to name a Wikipedia article is exactly what you have accused me of: failing to have a global perspective. A global perspective means that when something is properly to be attributed to a region then that region's terminology controls. In this case, the correct terminology is simply "pantomime", and everywhere except America, that terminology would be clearly understood. For Americans, I have tried to make the article clear. When I first came across pantomime, about 25 years ago (because of frequent travel to a musical theatre festival there), I had never heard of any such thing, except for the French genre. But if you said to an Australian or a German or even a Belgian, what is "pantomime", they would describe the British genre to you without a qualifier. How do I know this? Because I have done so. It is literally only in America that we did not know of the genre, although that may be changing. I hope I have now made myself clearer, and I am sorry to have offended you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Thank you!
On Facebook tonight, I'll ask my German, Belgian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Haitian, Cuban and Mexican friends (note the absence of subjects of the Empire or Commonwealth, or whatever they call it nowadays!). If even one agrees with you, I'll really be surprised. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Prepare to be surprised (especially if you ask the question neutrally, like "have you ever seen a 'pantomime', and how would you describe it?")! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SergeWoodzing. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
This is the sixth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records.
And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2019!
Dear SergeWoodzing, for your information it seems your user account is currently the subject of a discussion at Swedish Wikipedia. For the record, I haven't collaborated with you priorly and I am not familiar with the background. Please let me know, however, with reference to your post on my talk page should there be anything I can do to offer a helping hand to the best of my understanding and ability. PPEMES (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm sure people like you @PPEMES and @Tostarpadius understand if/when you see something like this being done. First, an IP & I are discussed at length with all kinds of negative comments from the past, and when the IP tries to comment, it's removed! That's (not) good faith for you! The hatred there is flabbergasting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that. I don't really understand why that comment was reverted. I am sorry if you felt mistreated there. If you have anything in particular in mind, let me know if I can be at help. While I'm not an expert in general, nor specicially to your personal case, I'm wondering if Swedish Wikipedia follow the same routines on Blocking for incivility, Behavior that is unacceptable, and WP:NOPUNISH - and if not, why.
I regret that you are not interested in positively contributing to Swedish Wikipedia. While that language version is massively impressing, as are all versions, yet in comparison with English Wikipedia, it still looks like an empty desert. And so contributers with international focus should be welcomed there if they bring about constructive additions. PPEMES (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page to Delite
Heading text
As I sadly understand its impossible to update the wikipedia page on me and my life and arts
as I have now tried for so many times and the page as it is now is annoyingly bad and wrong and misinforming about who I am and what I do and have done Its done by a Madman with the name of Lars jacob who is trying to destroy me Now want the who wikipedia to be Deleted immediately !!!! if no changes will be accepted then take it all away as it is now harmful to me and my carere.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyD2019 (talk • contribs) 22:21, January 15, 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on the article's talk page, not here. This is not a matter that concerns me personally. I will reply there, if you write there, and if you refrain from any personal attacks on anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How to delete my wikipedia page
I have tried making changes on my page, They were reverted. I want to delete my current Thomas Dellert Dellacroix page and create a new one.How doI achieve so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyD2019 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the years, you have been clearly and repeatedly told to stay off my talk page. It cannot have been more clear to you that your whining is not welcome on my talk page. Why do you believe that others should respect your "courteous requests" when you do not respect theirs? Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me one instance where that has been asked of me, and I'll be glad to apologize sincerely.
If you'd like me to save up many more examples of what I'm asking you to stop doing, and deal with that problem in other ways, you will continue not to respect my request that you stop personalizing everything. Please read WP:TPYES which you have habitually violated in this regard for many years (not just about me) and apparently intend to continue to violate. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Context is always important. "Sorry" can be used as a kind & sincere apology (never by you, as far as I've seen) or as the supercilious overweening down-talk of an intentionally rude instructor. You make me very nervous and seriously turn me off to trying to good work here, wherever you're also involved.
I accept that challenge & will now begin to collect links to clearly show how often, not just with me, that you comment (negatively) on the contributor and thus purloin one discussion after another where constructive, non-personalized editing on content was what we were trying to do, and supposed to do. Your snyde remarks, sarcasm, ridicule and personal jabs are no longer welcome on this page. Please stay off it permanently, if you can't stop all that! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continued sarcasm & accusations amounting to personal attacks will not help you. Neither will your continued unpleasantness on this page. This is the 2nd time I'm asking you: please stop & stay away from here with all that nasty crap! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Count Flemming af Rosenborg
Dear SergeWoodzing,
I greatly appreciate that you changed the original version and you are more than welcome to change any grammatical errors. I am not particular good a grammar, so we all appreciate how you corrected any grammatical errors and reverted the rest back to the original document.
Yes thank you I had noticed that you had changed it back and I truly appreciate it. It is kind of funny Dr. Kay changed it based on a comment you had written in another section of wikipedia.
If you could tell her that you changed your mind I would be deeply grateful and pardon the confusion.
Thank you for your help and hope you have a wonderful weekend!
OK, dear BabbaQ, done. I'm always glad to help. But please have a careful look here and you'll find that, aside from my more aesthetic language adjustments and grammar, you could have made my review a bit easier by avoiding such standard things as missing possessive apostrophes - father's - ; was, not were, in singular; and the albeit creative, but not appropriate invention of words that do not exist, like surbconstanses or rootlessness (use Google Translate more effectively! - rootless betyder utan rötter). Aside from any typos of my own that might be in there now (I make quite a few), I didn't think we should go into quite as much detail in English about sexual matters. The article also leaves one wondering what, if anything, happed to the accomplice who drove the murderer to the scene to try to derail the search. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop filing improper reports at AN3. I've already explained to you what is improper about them. To do it a second time is abuse of process.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to write to you and ask what's improper this last time. No abuse intended. Can't find what it is you mean. I have no experience with such reports. Can nobody guide me? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing you mean the lists of diffs etc. I thought my point was clear as per edit history there, and that it would be easier for you guys just to go by that. I've never done anything in a form like that. Let's just forget it and hope WP:3O will help. Sorry to have bothered & irritated you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to explain the first time on my Talk page. I did (as did someone else but much more briefly). Did you not read it? It's still there. You can ignore my incredulity and just focus on the substance of the explanation. Oh, and yes, I mean "the list of diffs etc." The format of the report is important. AN3 is a difficult place for administrators, and a proper report makes it easier.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you again! I thought the edit history, in this particular case, would be simpler for anyone to see what has been going on, and I did not realize that the formatting was mandatory. Do you think that's clear on the page, in the instructions - that a report will not be considered a report and will be deleted if exact format is not followed? As an old man, who has written all kinds of reports since the 1960s about other things, I really felt (feel) foolish this time. I'm all for making your lives easier, those of you that help us with edit wars. It's very important work. You are probably all for making reporting easier too, for those of us who have never done it before - i.e. that the page could be clearer in the instructions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to tell you that despite our "introduction", you're a very nice fellow to talk to. Yes, the instructions could be clearer, but if you don't want to create a report manually, you can use Twinkle, so it's not all that hard. Try it, you'll like it!.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I noticed you posted at the BLP noticeboard about Ivan Boesky. I think when you do, you are supposed to also tag the article talk page with the "BLP noticeboard" template. The instructions are at the top of the noticeboard page. I went ahead and tagged that article for you. Since you've also brought up a couple of other articles, you may want to tag those as well.
Thanks for your intervention on the Thunberg talk page.
If there is a wiki rule I'll obey it.
But I can't find the rule about using real names either.
Greta has her good points of course, and so do her parents, but using Tintin is not one of them - in my view.
However, names are largely a matter of taste of course (assuming the child is not hampered by the name).
Cheers for now. MartiniShaw (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DS Alert BLP
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi, the template above is informational. It is part of the "ACDS" procedures for certain areas of frequent controversy. Please click and read the pages that are linked in the template. They should explain. I've posted the same template to my own page, just to show its an FYI thing only.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a right to my general opinion, on Wikipedia and everywhere. And I mentioned not one other editor by name in any way that could considered inappropriate. Please do not try to bully me! And stay off this page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barring some future problem I'll try to remember to not interact here per your request above. If, after the passage of time, I should happen to show up and it seems there's isn't a very good reason, its probably just because I forgot so I'll apologize for that possibility in advance. In closing, if you think your RS-based article improvements have been wrongly kept out of the article, I will be glad to participate in any WP:Dispute resolution process you care would like to try. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I perceive this unneccessary comment as harassment and continued attempted bullying, in line with your veiled-threat comment above about a blocked user. You have no power on this particular page. I repeat - 2nd request - please stay off this page! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying
Hi there.
Yes many of these editors do bully, and the talk page I referred to earlier is a prime example.
The BLP business was a trumped up charge and an almost textbook frame-up.
Quite a lot of gaslighting going on too.
See you later bud. MartiniShaw (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It's very discouraging and sort of scary. Out of control is another way of describing it. They way Wikipedia is not supposed to be. I've known Ms. Thunberg's mother since 1996 when she was just starting out as a singer at private parties, & I'm quite embarrassed for the family over that overly promotional article. People who are extremely involved in a cause should try to think through some of their tactics, tools and methods, and at whose expense they employ & pursue them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Big chunks of the GT talk page are being deleted/"archived" if they are deemed unsuitable for whatever random reason the deleter can think of. Mentioning no names but NewsAndEventsGuy comes to mind (lol). There is a team of them at it, I'm afraid. I may be gone for a while because I have written this on your talk page, and they won't like it. Be seeing you. MartiniShaw (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked NewsAndEventsGuy to stay away from this page. This is my third request: stay off this page! You are not welcome here under any circumstances, especially not to start arguments with me or anyone else. Defend yourself and your actions elsewhere, not here! If you reply to this, or ever write anything here again, I will report you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I acknwoledged your demand unless there was a problem. (Sept 9, including offer to do DR). In this case the problem is WP:Casting aspersions (i.e., bullying) and WP:Gaming the system (i.e., disruption-then-laying-low). You have your choice of reporting me to WP:ANI or WP:AE where I will be all too happy to explain this again. In addition to the policy on WP:Harassment the subject area falls under WP:ARBCC. Please note that while you do have latitude in managing your talk page, you do not own it (see WP:OWNTALK. Per the WP:Talk page guidelines behavior that is unacceptable includes the following
Personal threats: For example, threatening people with "admins [you] know" or with having them banned for disagreeing with you. However, explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is not considered a threat.
All of my posts here have been intended to support the purpose of the article talk page so we can write a great article, nothing more or less. If you feel compelled to report me I'll be glad to repeat all this there, too, no problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As per the guideline you quoted yourself, your appearances here cannot not motivated as appropriate. Stay off my talk page! Thuis is my fourth request. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, per WP:REMOVED, with a few exceptions, you can simply remove comments from your talk page you’re not happy with. While there’s not a strict policy about what happens when an editor asks another to stay off their Talk page, per WP:NOBAN it’s recommended that other users respect such requests, except for notices required by policy (such as, for example, notifying you about an ANI or AE discussion they started in which you are named). If I were you, I’d either ignore a user I didn’t wish to respond to, and/or simply delete their comments off your page, or archive them, if you prefer. However, also read WP:REDACT, so as not to leave weird, orphan replies to earlier comments that have disappeared.
One other thing, Serge, although you can ask anyone not to comment here, just from a human perspective if not a guideline-based one, it’s a bit unfair to name someone in a comment on your page, and then expect them not to defend themself because you’ve asked them to stay away. So, maybe don’t mention N&EG anymore as long as they are not welcome here.
N&EG, if you’re lurking and wish to reply, please use my talk page instead of this one, as Serge has asked you not to comment here. Cheers and happy editing to all, Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingolf of Sweden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bjorn Ironside ancestry chart
I recently put up an ancestry chart for Bjorn Ironside. Every single ancestor had a link to that person in Wikipedia and explained the relationship. I was just trying to clarify the Wikipedia information. Each wikipedia article referenced that these relationships were often mythical tales from Snorri Sturluson and many others. If needed I could add the same references that were used in each wikipedia article. What do you recommend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redriv (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that we do not have ancestry charts for fictional and semi-fitional characters. If we ever do, it must be clarified that the chart is a matter of legend, not of fact. Very clearly. I also recommend that article content is discussed on the article's talk page, not here. It is not up to just you and me but to anyone else also, who might have an opinion. There. Not here. Thank you, though, for asking. Sincerely --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Merry!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
Hello SergeWoodzing, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.[reply]
You are correct about what you said on Caroline's talk page. Unfortunately, others dwell on negative aspects of people's lives and amplify them. I tried to point this out, but was cut down very quickly and in fact banned. If you want to put things right, it will take a lot of time. Personally, I think that in Caroline's case, it is not really worth it, as the competition is too strong. Wallie (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
February 2020
Hi --SergeWoodzing I'm sorry but i don't share your views nor do i agree with you. Your fixation on trying to remove the concept of succession from Swedish monarchs just isn't right. I have stated that there is a difference between normal kingship and legendary such. The ones that are featured on the pages where we have collided are not as part of the normal Swedish monarch tradition of succession as it's clearly shown to be part of the "legendary" prehistoric discussion. I have found many conflicting things you have posted and the discussion about you isn't exactly good either and to be honest is far more extensive than what is said about me as you're the first to raise a complaint.
By your logic you would literally have to go to every single legendary monarch page in Europe and remove all forms of succession from the legendary discussion. You cannot shape the narrative of history just because you don't like it, you are the minority here as the edits I'm protecting were made long before i joined the discussion. Something actually feels a bit off about you based on how many people you've nominated for deletion and I'm actually starting to think you're abusing the forum and have gotten tunnel visioned with just getting your own opinion through. Stop trying to threaten and bully people into submission. You post on my page saying you'll have me blocked because you have some sort of authority on the matter just because you don't like my edits.
They aren't breaking any rules and are in line with what previously has been the majority opinion on these pages which you are trying to remove. You feel like you have the right to bully and threaten to get your way, i respect that but i assure you that you have no such right. This type of behavior could have you blocked as trolling because of personal opinion isn't allowed. I read your opinion on Greta Thunberg for an example and they actually scare me. You seem to have a fixation about disliking her and trying to smear her good name with no sources or credibility which just isn't right, your personal bias is showing here which is highly unprofessional. I suggest you shape up a bit, to use your own rude language. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are suoposed to use the talk pages of the related articles, like this one. No reason for you to come here with any nastiness. Just follow normal perocedure & use the article talk pages. I have not threatened to block you myself or anything else.I just informed you about the trouble that might be coming up if you continue to edit war and refuse to use article talk pages. Anyone can report you, not just me. I propably won't, unless you keep this up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Order of precedence in Japan (Imperial family)
Hi, I noticed your deletion proposal for the page on the order of precedence in Sweden. Can you do the same for this page as well (name of the page in headline) ? It doesn't have a single source and looks awful in all sorts of ways, way more deserving of deletion than the Swedish equivalent. --Killuminator (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know enough about that subject. I've also recently learned that a thorough search for reliable sources must be conducted before any unsourced article can be deleted. That's the (your) problem now. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread has been archived
Hi SergeWoodzing! You created a thread called To source or not to source... at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Hi, I saw that some years ago you suggested a move of the article "Riddarholmen Church" to "Riddarholm Church" which is how that article is named now. I just wrote some arguments on the talk page of that article as to why I believe it should be changed back. Thought you might be interested. Yakikaki (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Need help with Ragnar Lodbrok
Hi SergeWoodzing. Could you please help clean up the vandalism at Ragnar Lodbrok? People are trying to make it out that Ragnar was a actual king and not a legendary one. As far as i know he's a legendary king of Denmark AND Sweden, not just only Denmark. However people are trying to make it seem like he definitely existed. It is getting really annoying and i really appreciated your previous edits so if you could take a look that would be highly appreciated. Gaudi9223 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" bolded well-established Norwegian name as it is bolded in other projects' articles" - that is NOT a valid reason to bold a term. The ONLY valid reason is because it is the article's title OR A REDIRECT THERE. See WP:BOLD. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is excruciating bullshit! How come a family tree is not "a trusted source", but a fan blogspot blog (!!!) which is currently quoted, yet demonstrably just spreading a lie, IS ALLOWED?! Dude, do you even read what you disallow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D is for... (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs on the article's talk page not here. And I suggest a more courteous tone, there too. Without that, you are not welcome here at all, for any reason. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the future?
Rather puzzled by your comment here -- the article has not been kept (at least not yet), the AfD is still going. What did you mean? --JBL (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear what I mean. The sister's article has been deleted. The brother's article should have been deleted at the same time. The criteria are exactly the same, except for gender. Looks bad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok -- it is confusing because "kept" suggests the specific action of someone deciding the consensus was to keep (rather than the present inaction). The two articles could have been proposed for deletion as a pair (that would have been better, actually) but since they weren't, it's subject to the usual vagaries of which admins happen to look at the deletion queue when. Based on the discussions I've seen over the past month or so, I think that it is easier to delete articles on female pseudo-nobles, and that this does reflect problematic systemic biases on Wikipedia; but I don't think such an argument will ever be treated as a good reason to delete something. --JBL (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grace O'Malley talk page
Sorry but I removed the reference in your adjusted example, it was adding a citation link to the talk page. Just letting you know out of politeness. Arnkellow (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Stockholm 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.
This removal was improper and violated the rules at Third Opinion, which state: "If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer." But the best remedy is to just do nothing. If a 3O is given, you're free to ignore it since 3O's don't "count" towards consensus. I've reverted the removal. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me why you think the article - you know perfectly well which article I mean - is "bogus". That is not a nice word to bandy around when the article had two good references. It is a stub, and I marked it as such with a template: other bots etc then added stuff in. I Interwiki'd it. Usually I edit as IP, but in translation there are tasks I can't do without being IP - so yes, my contribution under this username is short but I could not do the wikilinks without it. Please review WP:AGF then tell me what I did wrong. MagyarLinguist (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says right at the top of WP:RFD "Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be Bold!". Whichis what I did. Now, turning articles into redirects..... may be a different thing. I had to create an account to do it, as I ususally edit as an IP. I know why I do now: within six hours of registering an account I get harrassed by you, called "bogus", that it is a "bogus article", and so on. I'm sorry to have to do this but @Thryduulf: might be able to help me out here. I do not need abuse from you. I make quite clear in each and every nomination at RfD or RM under IP, and if my ISP changes my IP (it does quite often) then I say so. I'm sure on occasion I haven't noticed myself. It really isn't difficult to trace where my ISP is located. MagyarLinguist (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: your comment on MagyarLinguist's talk page is completely out of line and you are completely in the wrong in this situation. I don't understand what your problem with the article in question is, but if you have a problem with any article the first step is to discuss the matter civilly and without personal attacks, on the article talk page. Changing a redirect to an article is not vandalism. If you think the problems with the article are so severe that it should be deleted then you nominate it for deletion by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, without accusing anybody of vandalism. Additionally, you never remove necessary attribution templates as you did with this edit. If you continue to act in this manner you may be blocked from editing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I am afraid you have been duped in this case and have fallen for some deliberate trolling. There is no such town and everything in that article was phony. What's next is to try to get the troll and his/her admitted IP:s blocked. The article was just an attempt to get an inappropriate redirect, under a current deletion request, kept by someone who only is on English Wikipedia to try to add a homophobic pejorative nickname for Stockholm, Sweden, on English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to add salt to the fire, but in my experience over many years of translating, once the basic framework is done, other editors then add in more details. Some editors are scared of doing the templates and so on, and want to get the text done, others are quite happy to do the template gnoming and leave it as a stub for others to do. It was attributed, I did that quite correctly: Yes, it should go at the top of the page, but I didn't want to disrupt and I was in the middle of translating so just threw it in. Translation is really quite hard work, it is for me relatively easy to change the words. The article has references but hasn't a {{coord}}or anything (maybe it does now, I only just woke up and haven't checked yet).
Let's assume, as you seem to have done, that I am some kind of WP:NEWBIE. I'm not, but I created an account in good faith so that I could do some gnoming: I tried to make it quite clear at RfD and elsewhere that I am the person under that IP. I can take it, don't be too worried, but please don't cast around aspersions, threaten to block me, call me "phony" and "bogus", and accuse me of vandalism. That hurt. In real life I'd expect an apology. MagyarLinguist (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Serge means is that it is some kind of in-joke. Then that is fine: But the Swedish has it too. If it's derogatory (which I don't think it is, only a parody) then take it to WP:AfD as User:Thryduulf suggests. What I did in good faith is literally translate what the Swedish article said: then marked it as a translation etc. "Bogus" is the wrong term here, is derogatory in English, and perhaps my dander was up, but I translated in good faith. I said right from the start my Nordic languages are not as good as my others: but without ENglish-speaking readers being able to see it, we are not getting anywhere. THe picture cap should probably read "Station sign put up as parody" and so on: Like we have at Silkingrad, which redirects to Stevenage New Town (where I grew up). This is neither the first nor last time that people repaint signs: that may or may not make it notable, but certainly redirecting it to Stockholm does nobody any favours, and I'm sure we could all agree on that. If it's offensive or derogatory In Swedish then that is a job for Swedish WP: What our aim is here at EN:WP is to get people to the article they are looking for. MagyarLinguist (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You created a fake article about a fake town that has nothing to do with the Swedish article. As of now, you are not welcome here on my talk page for any reason, with this false info about a so-called translation or for any other reason. Please stay away from here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: your behaviour towards MagyarLinguist, an editor working in good faith, continues to be inappropriate. You will be blocked if you continue with the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. You've been told multiple times how to deal with an article you think is inappropriate: take it to AfD. If you believe another editor is acting in bad faith then follow the dispute resolution process without personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS. You've been given multiple warnings about your behaviour previously, so I recommend you start listening to the advice you have been given if you wish to continue being an editor here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, of course, it would have been nice if SergeWoodzing had explained in some detail why the article was bogus, but generally, if a good-faith editor raises a serious concern with an article, we – RfD regulars who close discussions – should make an effort to investigate before brushing them aside, especially if that editor has greater familiarity with the topic than we do. In this case, you would have immediately seen why the article at the time was bogus if you had compared it with the Swedish article it purported to be a translation of. There are no subtleties here, Google Translate would have done just fine. – Uanfala (talk)12:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: the attitudes and communication of the two editors concerned led me to believe that SergeWoodzing was the one who was not acting in good faith (particularly with the unexplained reverts and personal attacks - indeed whatever the rights or wrongs of the article I am still not fully convinced they are engaging in good faith editing here). I have not knowingly interacted with either editor before and had no knowledge of their experience. In any case, when a page is no longer a redirect it ceases to be in scope for RfD and anyone who has a problem with the content of the new article should explain that problem on the article talk page and/or prod/AfD the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's never safe to assume that polite = competent, or exasperated = vandal. Anyway, I believe these sort of RfD closures, through procedurally punctilious, are deeply problematic, but that's an issue I've raised elsewhere. – Uanfala (talk)12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
I just wanted to pop in and thank you for all your work on the Bernadotte page. I appreciate you keeping things sane with the various languages and keeping the standards high.
I think I am one of the few scholars that specialize in Bernadotte in particular and I have made many edits on that page along with you. There are not many people super familiar with the subject. And there are those that have made bad edits, influenced by some bad history or nationalist grudges, so thank you for keeping things in line! Best! – SJCreecy (talk)20:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You moved an article with no regard to the discussion and consensus on its talk page. Your pointer here about anything else is irrelevant to that. Stick to topic, please, and do it in the right place (not here). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One-word answer: both. Odd official Swedish tradition to always call the kings Karl after death, no matter what they called themselves. Thus the royal court's spelling and all the Swedish Wikipedia articles'. Thank you for asking! Also Uno Brander's big biography called him Karl. I would go with Carl/Karl. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! I am writing a book on Bernadotte, and primary source documents, and the variety of biographies, all in 3-4 languages, is both very challenging and rewarding. There are many points of view on Carl Johan.... Thanks again!
Very interesting! I suppose you've seen my books? And I hope you will (1) not use Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte too much at the expense of what his name actually was from the start & subsequently and (2) not neglect the whole subject of the Prince Bernadotte title re: him and descendants. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By "my books" I did not mean to out myself. Many people know that I have access to a historical library of over 600 volumes. That's what I called "my books". Throne of a Thousand Years is in that collection. Someone made an issue of this recently on Swedish Wikipedia. They have been trying to out me for many years there. No rules there against that. No dispute resolution policies. No 3rd opinion assistance. Here's a charming example of their tactics. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SergeWoodzing!
I will check that book out! I am always looking for more sources and colleagues to collaborate with! I would be remiss to neglect the Prince Bernadotte subject. The problem with writing a bio on CXIVJ is that there are actually more bios on him than any of the other marshals (for good reason). Barton's magistral bio seems the definitive work and there is not much to add to his pre-1818 work. But I would like to go into more on his reign as King. And his legacy in Swedish and Norwegian politics. And, as a final gibe at Napoleon, how many more of his descendants sat on thrones, and married into other royal families compared to the Bonaparts.
Karl X Gustav of Sweden & Baroness Ludmilla Jankovska von Lazan
Hello !
Request that the following is restored:
By Baroness Ludmilla Jankovska von Lažan (1615-1655) he had an Illegitimate son: Karl Vaclav Jankovský of Vlašim (1644-1684), who became Baron of Château Rešice in Moravia.[7]
Fryderyk I Heski, Dynastia Palatynow, Karol X Gustaw, p173-176
E. Knesl 1988, Historie Jankovsko – Tunklovský 1693, p79-100
Book: Pravoslav Kneidl, 1984, Historie o synu švédského krále a české paní
Book: Sixtus Bolom, 2008, Tajemství Jankovských z Vlašimi a na Bítově, Chapter 6
.
Karl X Gustav: En biografi - by Björn Asker - 2012
Prince Karl Gustav (Karl Gustav von Pfalz-Zweibrücken) and Baroness Ludmilla (Ludmilla Bechyňové z Lažan) meet each other during Karl Gustav's participation in The Thirty Year War in Moravia. They had an affair at Château Tovačově and Horní Moštěnici in 1643. Ludmilla gave birth to son Karl Vaclav (Carolus Wenceslaus Jankoffsky) in Znojmo, Moravia in 1644.
After the Battle of Jankov in 1645, Prince Karl Gustav brought Karl Vaclav back with him to Sweden. Prince Karl Gustav paid for his education (Uppsala University, Oct. 5th,1646) and the young Karl lived with him on the Isle of Öland. In 1649 the widow Ludmilla needing financial aid sent a letter to Prince Karl Gustav in Sweden asking for support for herself and her two daughters (Sweden, a letter, dated April 19th, 1649). Prior to becoming King of Sweden Karl Gustav returned young Karl Vaclav to his mother Ludmilla in Moravia.
After Ludmilla's death in 1655 Karl X Gustav, King of Sweden, intervened in King's Tribunal in support of Karl Vaclav (Instructions Royal Tribunal in Brno dated January 12th,1656). Karl Vaclav was granted Coat of Arms, the title Baron Jankovský z Vlašimi and the ownership of the Château Rešice estate. Karl married Marií Františkou von Schaumburk, the daughter of Christoph ze Schaumburku and Apollonia von Stadion. They had two sons Karl Maximillian and Fredinand Leopold Jankovský z Vlašimi.Karl Vaclav Jankovský z Vlašimi (Carolus Wenceslaus Jankoffsky) died October 15, 1684 in Znojmo, Moravia.
Thanks and take care !
I have restored the son and added a reliable source, but some of the other details about him need to be sourced more reliably with page numbers (no private blog-type sources or genealogies, no wiki articles). Sorry I do not have access to Asker's biography of the king. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On what page of that book is this specific information: "Karl Vaclav was granted Coat of Arms, the title Baron Jankovský z Vlašimi and the ownership of the Château Rešice estate." ? If you can give me the page number, I will add the citation properly (not on the talk page, but in the article). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now, as well as can be done. Sundberg specifically states that only Count Gustaf Carlsson of Börringe is certain among the suspected extramarital children of that king. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Swedish royal family tree
Hi, thank you for your message and thoughtfulness! In reference to why I changed the names, I did it because that's how many of the other royal family trees are set up. As far as changing it in the future when they pass, the tree would have to be changed anyway (ie. Victoria would become queen, Daniel prince consort, Estelle crown princess, etc.; not to mention the boxes of the current king and queen would need to be made red). It does distinguish them as the present monarch and consort as opposed to a former/abdicated monarch (as is more common in monarchies outside of the UK such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, etc.), and is how their names appear in the Swedish royal family template (and how other royal family templates are set up). Their names are also spelled out earlier in the article. I'm not dead set on it, so I'll be happy to change it back if you think that's best. However, I do think it speaks to continuity across other pages and templates. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's definitely more informative to name them, in my opinion, and since that's what we do, inform, please change it back! And thank you for your consideration! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chanson
Sorry, I think your move of Chanson to French songs was not a good idea, and reverted it. The pieces in question, be it medieval or 20th century, are called chansons internationally. If you want to try a move anyway, I recommend a formal WP:RM, but see little chances for a success. Chanson is mentioned 64 times on the page, - that tells me enough about what the Common name is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your revision on the sentence in the CXIVJ page on the Invasion of Swedish Pomerania. I saw that you thought that the "official" French reason for invasion, that Sweden was not adhering to the Continental System, was not encompassed in the citation. I have went back to confirm that it is mentioned in Barton (P. 32 of Barton's Bernadotte: Prince and King), and Scott's Bernadotte and the Fall of Napoleon, Pp. 12-13. But, in my error, or someone's, the wrong citation was provided for the immediate reference. There was a cite for Franklin's Sweden: The Nation's History that did not include that bit. I have since cleaned up the citation issue.
I am not going to push the point of restoring the older version, but I think it important to include the official French point of view, even if it was obviously not to be taken seriously.
Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Charles XIV gustav. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
Hi SergeWoodzing! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, "Non-diffusing" categories?!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
I hope you are well! I want to ask your opinion on a matter. I was editing the page on the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814 and saw something rather odd. Someone had edited the info box claiming that the Swedish Army did not have 100 cannon "in their whole army," and thus changed the Swedish cannon establishment for the campaign to four batteries (12-16 cannon) for the invasion force of 45,000 men.
Needless to say, this is absurd given that the Swedes had far more than 100 cannon in their army and that Bernadotte had reformed the Swedish Army along French lines (to some extent), and that the given cannon establishment of the day for the French, and other powers in 1813-1815, was about 20-30 cannon per division, and with each corps level unit having a artillery park of its own of around 30-40 cannon. 43,000-45,000 troops is about four divisions, or two corps, so one figures that the establishment in total is probably well over 100 guns. Moreover, the invasion force was purposely besieging fortresses, a task that requires lots of artillery. Finally, it is well established that Bernadotte shared Napoleon's love of grande batteries, having used one of 150 at Dennewitz, and one of 200 at Leipzig.
While this is all known and can be cited as the typical make-up in terms of cannon that we may infer, I do not have a citation for an actual number of cannon used in the campaign by the Swedes and Swedish wiki also omits the total number. So while the 4 batteries listed is very obviously wrong, until I have a source giving me an exact number, I feel I cannot edit the number.
However, I am generally constrained by English language sources, which despite my large Bernadotte library I have no number, and a rather limited use of Swedish sources. As you are an acknowledged expert on Carl XIV Johan, I was wondering if you had any sources that may include the number of cannon in the campaign, or if you could point me toward a source or two on the matter.
As always, I enjoy working with you and I hope you have had a great holiday season! Best!
Thank you for your kind words. I have Barton's and Brander's factual biographies on C14J and Lindwall's on his wife. Would you like me to check them, or have you done so already? Is there a reliable source given for the 100 cannons claim? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have Barton's in the long form, three volumes, and checked the four other bios in English I have (Liverpool, Palmer, Wildern, Phillipart), as well as Franklin D. Scott's "Bernadotte and the Fall of Napoleon," and none give a number of the cannon. They do have oddly fluctuating numbers on the invasion force. In P.O. Backstrom's "Carl XIII Och Carl XIV Johan" he gives the number of the 40 cannon between the three divisions, constituting 22,000 men returning from Germany in early 1814 following the conclusion of the War against France. It does not cite the number of cannon for the 20,000 troops of the Reserve Army already along the Norwegian Border in July 1814. I have ordered a book on the War, but it is stuck in transit from Sweden. I do not have Brander, that might be of immense help! Thank you!
I am not certain where that person got the 100 number from. It is comically bad though. I checked that person's posting history and he is rather young and did not cite a source. I am tempted to change it back to 117 cannon, which actually is about right for two corps. But, we have to run a tight ship on that page!
Hello, I wanted get your opinion on the new image being used for the info box of Charles XIV John I liked the old one better but don’t want to reverse it because I’ve had several interactions with the editor who uploaded it in the past and I know he’ll reverse it back. Just wanted to see what your opinion was about it if you think it looks good. Have a nice day! Orson12345 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The portrait should show him as king, and I don't think the current one does. He was 55 years old in 1818. Go ahead and make the change, I'll back you up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry just saw this now been really busy. Just changed it now the user that changed it originally hasn’t been as active lately so hopefully he won’t give me any problems. Orson12345 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigrid
I wanted to explain my revert on Sigrid - your addition said the author had Olaf and Sigrid married earlier, but they split and that let them marry Gunhild and Sweyn repectively. The problem is that in the body of the article we name Gunhild as a wife of Sweyn, not of Olaf, according to Snorri, so there is a mismatch over who is marrying Gunhild. Please explain on Sigrid's Talk page so I can better understand what this author is saying (and the nature of the work - is it a historical study or historical fiction?) Agricolae (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This does not belong here." That is why I specifically asked you to explain it on the Sigrid Talk page. And it is still wrong, so I reiterate this request. Agricolae (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before you make any (any) changes, I suggest you read the rest of the article and also read the source you are citing to make sure that your changes correspond with the actual text of your source. I have now corrected this again. The princely titles were never removed from these kids nor from their cousins, the sons of Prince C P. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove assessments
SergeWoodzing, don't get going in removing assessments. We've had this discussion before, although it was some years ago. Kind regards, Tomas e (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with article assessment for a specific project you are more than welcome to reassess them, see general assessment FAQ. It is preferably that you use constructive edit summaries when doing so. When it comes to assessment there is, in my opinion, a wide grey zone between e.g. start-class and C-class or importance=low and importance=mid for a project, so reassessment is not a strange thing at all. But removal of assessments is simply not useful for the housekeeping of any Wikipedia project, since the resulting "NA" indicates that the article hasn't been checked out at all from an assessment point of view. And I plead with you not to start behave in the same way here as you did at Swedish Wikipedia over a long period of time. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to remove assessments made by unqualified users who have little or no knowledge of some of the people whose bios they are passing judgement on. Read up! And feel free to make a big stink about this! I'd love to have your assessment qualifications assessed. You could also discuss a challenged assessment on the article's talk page, rather that bringing your objection here. That would be normal. Swedish Wikipedia does not do assessments and in any case is irrelevant to English Wikipedia, so your opinions about that are not appropriate on this page, especially not anything that smells like a personal attack. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hallå Serge, ville bara be om ursäkt för att jag var lite spydig tidigare. Var på lite dåligt humör, och blev irriterad, från vad jag har sett från dig på Wikipedia kanske jag inte håller med om allt du säger, men jag håller också med en hel del, och jag tycker att du verkar lustig och skön som person vilket kan vara sällsynt på den här sidan. För min del är konflikten löst, tycker personligen inte om formen men om den är standard så är den det. Du får ha en trevlig helg ;) TylerBurden (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, you are accusing me of all sorts of things on my talk page and on Talk:Swedish Americans, so I'd like to remind you of the WP:GOODFAITH guideline because it seems to me you are doing the exact opposite at the moment and assuming I am acting in bad faith. I am trying to solve the dispute, not escalate it. TylerBurden (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's very hard to see good faith in a a user who intentionally ignores quoted guidelines. We also do not discuss the same thing in several different places. This belongs on your talk page, where it began. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue with your conduct that I feel I have every right to point out on your talk page. If I have violated so many guidelines, then report me. TylerBurden (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You
Dear SergeWoodzing,
Thank you for the temporary fix on the House of Windsor page, and changing the picture representing Charles III. The person I was at an edit war and the person kept putting up a rather bad representing photo. In a week, (Counting from Oct 29th ((The day I sent the person a consensus notification)) So Nov. 5th) I will be changing the representing photo back to the cypher, until an official portrait or picture is released by The Royal Family.
If you have any questions or concerns please find my talk page.
You're thanking me for something you are going to reverse in a week?!? Please do not make any more changes of the photo (note: photo) of Charles III without using the talk page there to discuss it first. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, nevermind then.
If you have any questions or concerns please find my talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
Dear SergeWoodzing, I see you reverted the preceding edit to Alfred Nobel#Monuments and legacy saying in the edit summary "not in sourtce - we cannot know how he felt".
Here's a quote from the source: "Nobel was [...] tormented by the possible deadly uses of his discoveries". Do you not think that justifies the statement "Nobel was distraught that his discoveries might have been used for lethal purposes"? To me, the two sentences sound nearly identical in meaning. Citruswinter (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit on H.E Count Nikolia page were you state the reason for changing the page you said he is no longer royal you are wrong he is still listed in the danish royals website as a member of the royal family and is still in line to the throne in denmark they do not have a royal house and a royal family like some other royal houses of europe thankyou H.K.H45 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not welcome here with such tacky comments bordering on personal attacks. I don't care what nasty thoughts come to your mind. Stay away from here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization of Jan van Risseghem's name
While you are correct that the "van" in "Jan van Risseghem" should not be capitalized in English, as is also the case for other prepositions that commence certain types of toponymic surnames (such as "de," "ten," "zu," "von," etc.), that is not because the "van" should never be capitalized but because, in that instance, the "van" is preceded by a capitalized word referring to the person in question. So, in English (and in Spanish; I'm not familiar enough with other languages' orthography rules to know if it applies to them as well), one would write "I spoke with Jan van Risseghem," "I spoke with Herr van Risseghem," "I spoke with Mr. van Risseghem" and "I spoke with Dr. van Risseghem," but one would also write "I spoke with Van Risseghem," "I spoke with my friend Van Risseghem" and, of course, "Van Risseghem spoke with him." I don't care enough about Jan van Risseghem's article to edit it again, so I leave it up to you. Cheers, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in your opinion. Have taught English for 50 years. Never heard of this. Start of sentence, yes. Other than that, what do you base your opinion on? Could you send me a link for your source? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a link for the rule for English and Spanish; it is something that my father, who studied in a bilingual (English and Spanish) school in Puerto Rico in the late 1950s and early 1960s, taught me many years ago. The rule is generally respected in Spanish-language texts, although I've noticed that it's fallen out of favor recently in English-language texts (particularly with sportswriters bending over backwards to respect pitcher Jacob deGrom's wish that an upper-case D never be used when spelling his name, leading to sportswriters going as far as commencing sentences with "deGrom struck out nine batters ...").
It does appear, however, that the rule as I learned it--the preposition in the toponymic surname being in lowercase only when preceded by a capitalized word describing the person, so "Jacob deGrom" and "Mr. deGrom" but "Mets starting pitcher DeGrom"--is still the rule for Dutch surnames beginning with "von"; see von (Dutch, which provides, with citation to a reliable source, that "The "v" is written in lower case, except when the surname is used as standalone (when the first name or initials are omitted), in which case it is capitalised, as in "de schilder Vincent van Gogh" and "de schilder Van Gogh" ("the painter Van Gogh").[4]" AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that English will not necessarily have the same rules for capitalization of prepositions that commence toponymic surnanes as do Spanish and Dutch. My point is that, at least until recently, I thought that the rule that I learned as a child was used more often than not. Of course I know that many people don't follow that rule when writing in English; of course, many don't capitalize the first word of a full sentence that follows a colon, and that doesn't make it correct. Anyhow, here's a 2023 article from a London newspaper in which the name "Erik ten Hag" is capitalized following the rule that I described previously:
[10]. Please note that the author writes "Erik ten Hag will teach United to deal with in-game setbacks after capitulation" and "Erik ten Hag says Manchester United must learn how to recover ..." but then writes "It capped a wretched collapse for Ten Hag’s team across the tie ..." and ""Maguire has an important role,” said Ten Hag." The particular (Dutch) preposition "ten" is of particular importance to be written in uppercase in English when it's the first word of a surname but is not preceded by a capitalized first name or title because otherwise it could be confused with the English word "ten"; avoiding possible confusion is likely the reason why prepositions that commence toponymic surnames are capitalized in Spanish, Dutch and other languages in which those prepositions exist. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of a sentence in English in which not capitalizing the "van" in "van Risseghem" could create confusion: "He drove the van Risseghem theory home." Capitalizing "Van" would make it clear from the get-go that "Van" is part of a surname and does not refer to a motor vehicle. Such capitalization would be unnecessary when writing "Jan van Risseghem" or "Mr. van Risseghem." It's a practical rule even if it isn't followed universally in English orthography. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that we should never make any changes to the text of a Wikipedia article based only on what we assume to be correct. What one sports commentator wrote in The Guardian does not change my mind about that. Neither does a an inconceivable misunderstanding about driving a van, when the actual full name would have appeared earlier in such a text, giving any alert reader what would be needed not to misunderstand. Since you seem to be adamant about this, see if you can find your rule anywhere in a scholarly text in English about such things! That might sway me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tack och beklagan
Stort tack för din gåva, boken Centuries of selfies. Jag hoppas att du inte ångrar varken gåvan eller din dedikation och beklagar att du lämnade sammankomsten så uppbragt.
Vad jag försökte förklara är: Möjligen har du uppfattat allting gällande de tre herrarna Bernadotte helt korrekt och du har all sanning på din sida. Men, det är inte Wikipedia du ska övertyga. Det är andra trovärdiga sammanslutningar och "samfund". Då finns det vederhäftiga källor, då kommer Wikipedia på köpet. Det är så det fungerar och ska fungera.
Och så finns det ingen cabal, eller enskild användare eller adminstratör på svenskspråkiga Wikipedia som alla fruktar och vars ord är lag.
Varsågod, och tack för detta! Jag visste att du skulle uppskatta den boken, fast jag annars bara känner mig c 50% säker på hur du reagerar på än det ena än det andra. Har suttit & författat en lång e-post till dig nu ikväll. Jag har aldrig använt ordet "cabal" vad jag minns. Dock har du fel i det du skrev om det, och jag är långt ifrån ensam om att anse så. Det är en bekväm åsikt, inte en verklighetsbaserad sådan. Tar (halvt motvilligt) med lite av det i e-posten, fast det egentligen inte är i sak där, hellre än att tjafsa här. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following the above exchange, talking about "your book" and "I have..." (with reference to contents of the book), does this mean that SergeWoozding now actually claims (or if the term should be "admits"?) to be Jacob Truedson Demitz? My understanding is that this was not the case previously and it has been relevant to old WP:COI disputes (which I wasn't part of). Or am I just confusing enwiki and svwiki, back when SergeWoozding was still active at svwiki? Tomas e (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas e: The who is who, where and why, etc. etc. is unfortunate and unnecessarily complicated in a way. I am not a fan of that, but it is not relevant for the moment.
However, strictly speaking, it does not say "your book". It says "the book". Your "I have..." quote is not a reference to any contents of the book. It is a reference to the fact I used the wording "cabal", i.e cabal on Wikipedia, in the original entry. LittleGun (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas is pissed off at me because I won't let him arbitrarily & completely unqualified "assess" the biographies of living persons as "low importance" in an insulting manner on English Wikipedia, which it seems he just loves to do. That, and only that, is why he suddenly showed up here to try to stir things up. I just wish he'd go away. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assessments
Don't remove assessments from articles. Change them, preferably with justification, if you disagree. You know this already, so just stop behaving in a disruptive way. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Tomas e (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what exactly is your explanation for deleting all my changes at Oldenburg? You deleted the images of the ancestral seat in Oldenburg, of the coat of arms, and the two maps showing the duchy of Oldenburg. Also, you deleted the info that Oldenburg castle has been the ancestral seat of the house. And you deleted the info about the reigning dates of the house over their ancestral region. Labsahn (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and what is your answer? Your edit seems a bit hostile, as you completely deleted all the changes i made with a doubtful explanation i must say. Labsahn (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has something called a watchlist for every logged-in user, so I will see what you reply on your talk page. No need to write here anymore (2nd request). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
Hi, I'm writing to you about the Hedwig of Holstein page. You seem knowledgeable on the subject, so I was wondering if you couldn't check her birth-death dates? In the infobox and in the introduction they are both different and it would be nice to be able to make them consistent. Have a good day Sira Aspera (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serge! Hope you’re doing well. I haven’t seen you around for awhile, probably because it’s been a bit since I’ve edited Swedish monarchs. I always found you very informative and dare I say an inspiration to me because of your vast knowledge of Swedish history. When I first stated editing I remember reading some of your responses in article talk pages and thinking “Damn, this guy knows everything”. Just wanted to wish you good things and a happy holiday.
so should be normal (ill) Template:Interlanguage link link with both en-wiki and sv-wiki link?
However since there's no en-wiki about late sv:Lars Flinckman so that would create unexisting en-wiki page (as in red link) If I'm not wrong, from what I'm aware of past performances, Lars Flinckman was regular duo with Christer Lindarw...though I'm also aware After Dark is a Musical theatre group of team members too
hence had created direct link to sv-wiki since there's no en-wiki about Lars Flinckman and I definitely don't know Swedish...
so should be normal (ill) link with both en-wiki and sv-wiki link? or should be none at all (though seemed unusual given sv:Lars Flinckman regular duo with Christer Lindarw as explained above...
(was in similar one even more so in zh-wiki, actually Chinese Wikipedia even more sothan Swedish Wikipedia....) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Lars Flinckman was regular duo with Christer Lindarw...hence had created direct link to sv-wiki since there's no en-wiki about Lars Flinckman... .....my bad to link directly instead of normal one.
Are you someone who can assist with comment on the translation of Vasa as given in the explanatory footnote in the opening words of Vasa (ship)?
The footnote says that Vasa translates as fascine. I take this to mean the bundle of brushwood (or other material) used by military engineers to fill trenches and ditches. (Definition 1a in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
I believe this to be a mistranslation. I am no linguist, but as far as I can determine, the Swedish word vasa has two meanings: vase (as in the thing you put a bunch of flowers in) and sheaf (OED: One of the large bundles in which it is usual to bind cereal plants after reaping. Also, a similar bundle of the stalks or blooms of other plants). The clue to this is the symbol at the centre of the Vasa coat of arms, which seems to be a visual pun on the dual meaning of the word.
Looking at sources, we find (following on from an explanation of how "W" became "V" in modern Swedish): "In the 17th century, the ship was not referred to as Wasa, but as Wasan or Wasen, which translates literally as "the Wasa" (the definite article is a suffix in Swedish)." (Cederlund, Carl Olof (2006) Vasa I, The Archaeology of a Swedish Warship of 1628, series editor: Fred Hocker ISBN 91-974659-0-9 pg 15)
I stuck a {{citation needed}} on the footnote, but with no response – but it seems an easy thing to fix if you have a good translation.
English vase is out, since the Swedish for that is vas. Sheaf (of wheat) is the generally accepted translation of Swedish vase or vasa as used in the coat of arms. There are many theories and angles to this, meaning that certainty also is out. Personally, I do not agree that a fascine is part of this. Seems there are no reliable sources for that theory. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am reckoning that if a simple dictionary translation is "Sheaf", then the footnote should read: The 17th century name of the ship was Vasen ("the sheaf"), reminiscent of the wheat sheaf heraldic symbol on the coat of arms of the House of Vasa. Vasa has since become the most widely recognised name of the ship, largely because the Vasa Museum chose this form of the name as its 'official' orthography in the late 1980s. This spelling was adopted because it is the form preferred by modern Swedish language authorities, and conforms to the spelling reforms instituted in Sweden in the early 20th century.[1]
That is pushing the boundaries a little, as there is no ref to say that the name of the ship comes from the coat of arms – "reminiscent" is not exactly encyclopedic language, but it is of assistance in making an otherwise invisible suggestion to someone who is not a Swedish speaker. I don't know if this goes too far. But I think the fascine thing is of no value – if nothing else the word has limited meaning outside the world of military engineering. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serge is correct that a connection to "vase" is highly unlikely, and that "sheaf of wheat" is indeed one of the possible meanings (and some versions of the coat of arms clearly depicts a sheaf of wheat), but the word can be used for any bundle of sticks or straws, and thus indeed also a fascine (at least one etymologists have suggested a connection, but this does not appear to have been generally accepted). See SAOB and etymologisk ordbok. The CoA is the source of the name [11]. Some claim that the ship was more directly named for the royal family, but as the original name of indicates, this was not the case.
This has now raised its head in the article. It amounts to a failed verification template in the footnote in the first sentence of the text (after an edit back to "fascine") and a new subject on the talk page, where this discussion should probably move now.. (I don't know if User:Andejons is still watching this discussion.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you could look at this edit[12]. This cited source (vase sbst. 3) does not really seem to support any mention of "fascine" in the article whatsoever – so time for me to ask for someone else's opinion. What am I missing? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're missing is basic knowledge of Swedish.
The SAOB article provides the basic definition of a fascine ("bundle of straw, sticks, etc.") and then provides a link to the compound "stormvase" which specifically refers to military fascines. The reason you don't see how the article supports the claim is also because you lack basic knowledge of Swedish.
The source given supports "sheaf" in definition 1(a), as I have made clear on the article talk page, together with 2 sources (the Vasa museum website and the definition publication on the ship, Cederlund (2006) in the article) also supporting this view. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you're take on this is constantly changing: you suspect a connection to English "vase"; you don't believe there's a connection to the coat of arms; and now you seem convinced the word has only a single relevant meaning. Andejons and me (and whoever edited the Vasa article to "fascine") are telling you the word has multiple meanings. Serge does too but is personally skeptical to one of the definitions.
But you seem still seen convinced you know the correct interpretation despite not knowing Swedish and posting here to get support. From what I can tell, you're actively choosing which Swedish-speaker you trust to interpret Swedish-language sources. You appear to be forum shopping opinions while actively ignoring any source or argument that doesn't fit your views. PeterIsotalo16:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Here, I am offering specialized education on dispute resolution. Because you are someone I have seen often on dispute resolution and third opinion noticeboards often, I wanted to seek your philosophy on dispute resolution, how you might go about teaching a new user in dispute resolution, and any other comments you may have. Thanks,NeuropolTalk12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was contacting you to comment on those things I specified: " wanted to seek your philosophy on dispute resolution, how you might go about teaching a new user in dispute resolution, and any other comments you may have." Thanks,NeuropolTalk14:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still, after 18 years logged ín, not en expert at these things. Doing good work, year after year, thanking others for theirs, avoiding WP:COI situations and apologizing for ones mistakes bears fruit in (a rather long) time in the form of more appreciation from a few others. WP:3O is usually very useful in disputes on article content. And some administrators are also willing to help out if contacted calmly and reasonably. Reporting other users often backfires and it seems to be a WP tradition to find fault with the reporter, which can add insult to injury. Frequency of mention in media as the only acceptable criteria for article names (WP:COMMONNAME) and contents often makes no sense to reasonable people and can lead to unneccessary arguments. WP:COMMON SENSE should be more important. The same goes for info such as Silvia Sommerlath (presumed unmarried) as the mother of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden where the policies of genealogical websites have infiltrated WP and become exaggerated here very unfortunately. There are few users whose belligerent sarcasm and personal ridicule is tolerated year after year, and new users who learn to be difficult from them. Equal treatment should be a cornerstone. Also, our rules should be enforced more effectively on staying on topic on article talk pages where far too many users comment (usually acrimoniously) on other users, not concentrating on article content which is the only reason for the talk there. Some people just like to argue in a very personal manner.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
Hello SergeWoodzing, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG){kind=link}
