User talk:Inge/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hei. :) Holder akkurat nå på med litt oppdatering av no:Den Kongelige Norske Marines skip. Har kun fått gjort unna noen få fregatter, men håper at mer eller mindre alle artiklene skal kunne oppdateres og utvidet fra stub (eller eksistere i det hele tatt). Du sitter nok på en haug med informasjon, om du finner noen feil vil jeg bli lettere ekstatisk om du nevner det eller retter meg. Må snoke litt rundt på ting du har skrevet, når jeg kommer til de båtene som er lite dokumentert andre steder. Henning 12:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hei Henning! Flott å se flere som ønsker å skrive om Sjøforsvaret! Jeg skal prøve å holde meg oppdatert på det som blir gjort på no: blir bra å få flere artikler der også om skipene. Jeg gleder meg til videre samarbeid. Inge 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hva er så "pennant number" (F-301 og slikt) på norsk? Henning 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Det er pendant nummer. Inge 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Side der Marinemuseet bruker uttrykket Inge 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ser ikke ut som om linken funker. Jeg og Profoss tenkte også på no:Norske marineskip, og om det kunne være mulig å forandre på listestrukturen? Antar det er du som har stått bak denne, så du er kanskje den beste å rådføre seg med. Problemet er at slik den står nå, vil fregattene Oslo og Stavanger ikke lenger være i Fregattvåpenet-seksjonen, som i alle fall jeg synes er best. I stedet havner de under tidligere skip.

Har du noen råd av noe slag? Henning 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Prøv å google pendant+marinen det var sånn jeg fant den. Jag synes det er best om de ikke er med i Fregattvåpenet-seksjonen. Den delen er jo for nåværende skip og Oslo og Stavanger er ikke lenger en del av Fregattvåpenet. Det er for så vidt ikke Bergen heller så det mest riktige er vel å flytte den også. Jeg foreslår å skrive en liten beskrivelse ved siden av som gjør folk oppmerksomme på at vi har hatt flere. Inge 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Når det gjelder MTB-våpenet er de fartøyene som ikke er i tjeneste fremdeles med og kan bli brukt som reserve eller bli helt byttet inn. De er fortsatt en resurs for MTB-våpenet og bør derfor være med Inge 19:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.... takker. Holder på med Ula nå, tror det blir bra. Vet du datoene for kjølstrekking, sjøsetting og når hver ble tatt inn i tjeneste?

De var litt vanskelig å finne. Har bare funnet at selve KNM Ula ble overtatt og heiste kommando 27/4-1989. Inge 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm lacking free time lately to search sources on Polish troops... On the other hand, I can help on naval battles near Narvik, for I wrote such article on Polish wiki. Pibwl ←« 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I observed that you participated in talk about whether her article be "Märtha of Sweden" or "Princess Märtha of Sweden".

Firstly, when respectable works of reference such as other encyclopedias and history books mention deceased royal consorts, they are there usually simply "firstname + of + country". That is established usage. And one of its connotations is that they are sufficiently important and known and respected so no more titulary and honorifics are needed. The prefix "Princess" is not added.

Which is the level you wish to imply she belongs to?? Would you name her analogously to obscure nobles who need a title to show that they held a title. Or would you name her without title, as queens are named - which implies that no title is necessary as her achievements/position is well enough known.

These cases of crown princesses are not mentioned as "regular princesses", precisely because of the same reasons as their queenly "sisters" are not:
1) they often had a higher title by marriage, but it cannot be used in article names because of high ambiguate potential (if consort name is used) and
2) if added to pre-marital name, for being misleading (that would make this woman to "crown princess Märtha of Sweden" - and she was not crown princess of Sweden).

If you put "Princess" as prefix to her name, you choose so to sort of "deny" that she was actually crown princess. Shilkanni 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS When looking around her relatives (by looking Märtha's articles "What links here"), her son Harald seems to have an interesting genealogy. Have you read that?

I like your reasoning :) I would like her to be mentioned the "best" way. However before she became crown princess of Norway she was just one more of the princesses of Europe. If she is to have name+of country because she was more than a princess then it is just silly to have her of Sweden. Her position as of Sweden was as just another princess, her achievements and notoriety came from her actions as of Norway. So if I am to follow your rationale as I understand it now I would prefer Märtha of Norway (which has no ambiguate potential) or Princess Märtha of Sweden. Inge 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Inge, I noticed that you removed the Scanian flag. Please note that the Flag of Scania (cross), along with the Sami People flag, is accepted as a flag of an Unrepresented Nation by UNPO, and that the Flag of Scania (cross) is not an official Swedish provincial flag for Skåne. The official flag for the administrative Swedish region Skåne is now the Flag of Region Scania (armorial)---after much local protest to another version, which was a yellow and blue transformation of the armorial (http://www.fotw.net/images/s/se-regsk.gif see detail here). The Flag of Region Scania (armorial) was adopted 9 February 1999, shortly after the region began operating. The Flag of Scania (cross), because of the region's inclusion into UNPO, now represents a larger, historically based unit, which appears to make both Danish and Swedish nationalists extremely uncomfortable. Some would probably prefer it banned and burned. People may have differing opinions on whether or not minority flags should be included, and people may have differing opinions on whether or not Scania deserves to be considered an unrepresented nation, but in the name of objectivity, that ought not decide the selection process of flags to display on the page. The Scanian flag is hotly debated and to not acknowledge it at all on a page that deals with a more objective "birds-eye" view of the Nordic Countries seem odd and like a political stand. Because I would like to avoid any sort of POV dispute in what I consider a great article, and because I am thankful for the work you put in on a lot of articles, I thought I'd address this comment directly to you. I'm not going to engage in an edit war over it, for sure. After all, I'm a pacifist. ;) Best wishes, Pia 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello:) Thank you for the kind remark! I removed the Scanian flag because it is a regional flag of Sweden. The page should in my opinion only contain the official flags of the countries and the official special regions/nations/dependent countries Åland, the Faroes and Greenland and the Sami people. If you start adding regional and unofficial flags such as the flag of Skåne you will have to add them all. I am not against the flag of Skåne or a future special status for the region if that is what the inhabitants want. Skåne is special, but so are many other regions of the Nordic countries. As you say the page is a birds eye view and should not be too detailed in addition there are differing opinions on the subject of minorities. So to avoid cluttering up a page which is not about flags or Skåne and other regions of the Nordic countries I believe it would be best to limit the flag images to only the official ones. That is a fairly clear cut and easily enforced limit, that's all :) Does that sound reasonable? have a nice day! Inge 16:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Inge, in my opinion, the majority among the population in Scania is not concerned with territorial changes or the establishment of a new state, any more than the Sami people are. So if we have to wait for that day to include the Scanian flag, I guess the flag is effectively shut out of the Nordic flag community forever. Minority flags are not laying claims to territory or aiming to redrawn borders (and are not confined by state borders either, as is the case with the Sami people, who count their region as stretching over three national states). It's not about creating new nations either: A minority flag simply represent an old nation, a people, who has exerted the right to exist, the right to an identity witin an existing state, and who insists on recognition as a culture and a people with a history that is currently not allowed and not represented by the central state. The UNPO has officially qualified the people of Scania as such a people. (Not without merit, because it is extremely difficult, in general, to have "representation" and history writing monopolized by a region that has "annexed" another through a hostile take-over, especially one with as little initial interest in cultural diversity and as committed to centralization as the one that took over the landlocked part of Scania. I believe that what you see in Scania today is a reaction to issues like self-contempt over having been forced to do code-switching to hide dialects to get ahead (no other dialect than the one from Uppland is really universally accepted in official Swedish context)---add to that the realization that your ancestors were being unjustly vilified in school, and that the many generations of poverty that followed the burning of the ancestral farms was not self-imposed or the result of war, but deliberate plunder and abuse by megalomaniacal invading kings, invariably refered to as heroes in the Swedish history books. After all this time, people like to say, Scanians can be considered totally assimilated and Swedified, but what has happened, I think, is that younger generations have found the falsification of history infuriating and many are therefore refusing to continue with the myth that Scania existed in a vacuum, a Danish black hole, just sitting there with the gaze turned north until finally one sunny day in the mid 1600s, a Swedish king mounted his stallion and rode in to liberate the population from evil and darkness. (Uhm, by killing off about a third or a quarter of the population, sending a bunch to the Baltic States, and driving many more into hiding in the forests, homeless.) Even though most people don’t like to talk about it, the armed resistance against the "Swedification" continued for another 160 years after the initial "rescue". Anyway, I would be very interested to know how official status is determined for wiki pages with minority flags --- which authority is counted on to decide which flags are officially minority flags, for example the Sami people flag. Not to burden you with this, but I know you like flags Inge, so please keep an eye out for this one as well, even if you think it's unofficial, because it may well become an extinct specimen one day. Oops, this is too long. Better get out of here in a rush. :) Best wishes, Pia 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again:) Don't worry about the long text. I too sometimes write huge paragrafs on talk pages. When I say official I mean officially recognised by the government of the country. All the flags on the page now are officially recognised and regulated by laws or other official government regulations. Even the Sami flag is regulated by law (in Norway at least). I realise that it is unfair sometimes as Sweden might be reluctant to recognise the Scanian flag. But it is the easiest way to stop more and more flags being added to this page. The line gets sharply drawn and is not subject to interpretations or POV. I will keep my eye out for the Scaninan flag. I don't know too much about it but is probably one of the most used "unofficial" Nordic regional flags and it is already added to the Nordic Cross Flag page. Take care :) Inge 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please keep to the facts. this was added by User:Comanche cph

I try to be as verifyable as possible. It seems comanches perspective on history is heavily influenced with a pro-Danish sentiment. Thats fine so long as you are factual, but it many times crosses the border towards being anti-Norwegian. If you want to add things based on such feelings thats also fine so long as its factual, but please don't remove information or reverse meanings of information already in the article. Ainchent history espeshially is open to interpretations and all sources could be discredited. Comanche seems to choose only to belive sources that support a pro-Danish view on things. Inge 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats the differens, i use factual. I don´t know what you mean by anti-norwegian? actually im 1/4 norwegian myself :). Is it because i deleted the part on "Norway", you have writed, that Norwegians outconqured England? lol Inge. This is not a norwegian history site. This is a Encyclopedia. --Comanche cph 09:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why you added Flags of Central America as a "see also" link to Nordic Cross flag -- what's the connection? --ScottMainwaring 15:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The connection is that it is another group of flags with a common basic design and a geographical origin. Inge 14:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you a idiot? Stop rewriting that Norwegians are Danes to make the fake Hrolf Ganger history looks better. What do you even know about the sources and history about Hygeleik or Rollo? Hygeleik was from the Danish dynasty as the Swedish sources says.--Comanche cph 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please. No personal attacks. You have called me ignorant, narrow minded, vandal and now a idiot. This is not the way to behave here. You might want to find out what vandalism is before accusing others of it. I am not stating that Norwegians are danes. I am trying to keep the factual information that all the Norse people have erroneously at some point been called danes by some other peoples (espeshially the anglo-saxons). Inge 10:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No they was NOT? So what are Danes called Norwegians then? The Anglosaxon´s called Danes for Danes and their country was nabo with the Danes. Hygeleik is not a example you can use. Hygeleik became king over the Geats, but was born in Denmark as the sources says. And btw Hygeleik was from the 5´th century. And it´s not even sure, that he WAS the king of the Geats. But no matter what, it´s pathetic to use that for write that Danes was a name for all Scandinavians, and that´s totally vandalism. Don´t forget you started calling me for vandal. You are the one who is breaking the rules, not me. --Comanche cph 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Erroneoulsy" means that the people who used the term Danes on other than Danish people were wrong. But the use is no secret. Your question "So what are Danes called Norwegians then?" is a bit difficult to understand, but if I understand it correctly: The Danes called the Norwegians Norwegians, the Norwegians called themselves Norwegians and the Danes Danes, because they knew what the correct use was. I don't think it is common for a people to use a wrong term for themselves either.

Again I would like to ask you to read up on what vandalism on wikipedia is. Some of your edits have been vandalism and you are still engaging in vandalism (probably without knowing it). Please also refrain from using abusive language when communicating with othe wikipedians. Inge 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You think my edits are vandalism. But they are not. How can you even call other vandals when you write on "Norway" that Norwegians conquered all England. lol, That is so pathetic. --Comanche cph 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. That is not helpful to wikipedia or other peoples view on you. I have never stated that Norway conquered all of England. Some areas and towns in England were ruled by Norwegians and some were fiefs under the Norwegian king in periods. The main power base of the Norwegians in the British isles were the Islands of Scotland and the Irish sea as well as parts of mainland Scotland. Inge

This was wrote by "Inge" - That was not exactly what you wrote ;o). Look it up yourself. But let us get over with it. --Comanche cph 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never stated that Norway conquered all of England, not in articles, not on talk pages and not in real life. So if you agree I did not write that why are you still stating it multiple times in different talk pages? Inge 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC) OK. thanks :) Inge 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First, let me make clear I am not an admin and am not an authority figure with any actual power. I am writing to you as an experienced user to another user.

My time on the CVU has taught me how to use a warning template, in which context and which order. Although one doesn't need to follow a set of exacting rules, one does get the idea on how they should be used. One thing you should know off the bat is the final warning is for when you have warned the guy several times before and still he or she has not listened. Next thing is the 'removal of warnings' warning should be rarely used and in it self can cause a bit of injustice. I have taken part in a case where one user's warnings were half Removal Warnings, a third groundless warnings and the rest were either minor or from provoked situations. The moral of this is one needs to chill out a bit when giving warnings.

Moral of what I am telling you is to chill out a bit and I think it is best if you get a third party from the conflict resolution group to step in and review what you say are personal attacks. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don´t think Inge wanna know that. She just wanna do anything to rid of me. So she can start over again, with Rollo story in her pro-norwegian point of view. And rewrite the article on Norway. That Norwegians conquered England. And keep claiming other things, like it was Norwegians there was the great heathed army, and invaded York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorvik), also called (the great Danish army). And all the warlords in it, was Danes. And the english old writings, wrote about Danes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/women_02.shtml or http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=36313#s5

I don´t know if Inge are a he or she. But where i come from it´s a she name. so sorry if im wrong. --Comanche cph 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise OrbitOne, I am not very skilled in dealing with dufficult editors I admit I have not encountered cases like Comanche before in spite of being a long time member of Wikipedia. The guidelines for dealing with such things are not very easy to wade through. I would be extatic if any neutral person, administrator or better: a historian would engage in this conflict. Inge 11:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, I've already signed up. Unfortunately, I'll have to cut my Wiki-activity the next few months down a bit, but I'll keep it in mind. Btw, it's a bit unfortunate with the mess about Rollo. I think the better solution would be to include both theories and make the reader judge for himself. I don't know if the Danish tradition comes from Saxo, but as you no doubt know, Saxo was not particularly accurate. Alas, that's probably also true for most of his colleagues. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Inge

The Commons has a small problem about the copyright status of a fantasy flag of Bouvet Island. [1] Do you have any hard knowledge about Norwegian copyright laws? Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 01:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian copyright laws are generally strict I believe. I couldn't find the image by following your link so I guess it has been deleted? That would have been my recommendation anyway. I don't see how that flag could have been used aywhere other than in an article on Fantasy flags and there is most likely an automatic copyright on it. Inge 13:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling they were; so are ours, but I don't think it could be copyrighted under Danish law. The link is dead now, because the Commons decided to keep the image (commons:Image:Flag_of_Bouvet_Island_(rectangular).svg. I have also found a "relative" to it: commons:Image:Flag_of_Bouvet_Island_(local).svg Both are standard Norwegian flags with the colours changed. Anyway, I'm fixing the tags. I'm not Norwegian, but these images don't look even remotely official (do any people actually live on Bouvetøya btw?) The image on the source page (Vexilia Mundi) says that the image is copyrighted, but I think the name is simply the guy making the website's images. I have no idea about the original source behind these images. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody lives on Bouvetøya and this flag will never be used there. It should have been deleted, but so long as it isn't used in articles it doesn't matter too much. Inge 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you've been doing a lot of importance ratings lately, I was wondering if you could perhaps comment on the proposed clarifications to their descriptions? Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Be true to your own heritage, user Inge, and to correct history writing and revealing of information. Go ahead and change the number of Kvens back to the more accurate one, which properly was standing in the Wikipedia's Kven article.

It is a well known and a shameful fact that still as recently as during the time of the Second World War deportations of the Northern Norwegian Kvens to Southern Norway took place. Also, house arrests of some of the Kven leaders and other forceful tactics against the Kven population saw daylight then, as in so many other cases prior to that on the Norwegian soil.

As a Norwegian contributor on the Kven talk page emphasized earlier, indeed practically all Norwegians are descendants of Kvens, some more some less. He point out e.g. that much of the Southern Norwegian population was killed by the Black Death, when in 1347 AD in one of the worst natural disasters in history, a great plague swept over Europe.

Also - famously -, even prior to that, the Norwegian royal family descended - and even currently continue descending - from the Kvens, and furthermore, Norway was founded by the Kvens. In light of all of that, it is hard to understand the Norwegian long lasting stupidity relating to this matter.

Finally, - only recently - the Kvens have become a matter of a special pride for the Norwegians. New laws continue being ratified now, to extend rights for the Kvens of Norway. Accordingly, in the spirit of this recent new wakening, four times the number of students in the Northern Norwegian University of Tromsa registered in to study the Kven language last semester compared to the number of those signing in to study Finnish.

Thus, the current Wikipedia's Kven article is right to point out for instance the following of the past shameful treatment of the Kvens in Norway:

"The Norwegian government attempted to integrate the Kvens to the Norwegian main stream society by custom made policies and laws from the 1860s on. The use of the Kven language became forbidden and punishable in schools and government offices. Land purchace became prohibited for those who did not acquire Norwegian family names. Eventually, the sales of land for non-speakers of the Norwegian language became prohibited.

On national level, the Kvens even became to be considered a national "security risk" ("Finske fare"). Accordingly, the Norwegian Defense Ministry in 1870 demanded for all Kven names ("foreign names") to be removed from maps. Kven town and geographical place names were then replaced by Norwegian ones."

To state that only 50'000-60'000 Norwegians are so called Kven-Norwegians - or that only that number of Norwegians consider themselves to be Kvens - is a serious underestimation and a definite distortion of truth. No reliable statistics of the matter is currently available. However, according to the official 2005 Norwegian census, 25 000+ Norwegians speak the Kven language. A multiple number of Norwegian Kvens are known not to speak the Kven language. Yet, - nevertheless - they too are Kvens, regardless whether or not they speak the Kven language, officially known as Kainu.

ObrigadoToYou 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My edit to the Kven article was based solely on the credibility of the numbers used, not a political entry. See Talk:Kven Inge 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just thought linking to that article would be a good thing. BTW, Comanche has broken the WP:3RR again. PS: You don't "get" those trains, you have to build them yourself... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

You supported Battles of Narvik, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Haukur 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments with User:Inge have become less that civil at time, though the block lock never does show you as a vandal, so his comments there may have been out of line. Nevertheless, civility is the only way to avoid a deterioration of the current situation and more possible blocks of users.Voice-of-All 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a mix-up here :) Inge 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL...indeed... :D I was up at 3AM when I pasted it here. Moved.Voice-of-All 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Inge.

Guess who's found an interest in the page on Denmark-Norway? I've reverted his changes and posted a comment on the talk page. My comment on the talk page was made a bit quickly and I'd really hate to see this page messed up, so if you have any relevant comments / material, I'd be grateful. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ROFL. Hvad er kilderne for at Kongeriget Danmark for the kingdom of Denmark-Norway??? Et kongerige skifter ikke navn. --Comanche cph 21:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will help in any way I can. As with all the other articles Comanche has been causing problems we will try to get him to see reason. We will probably fail and have to revert his edits, but I guess that is one of the drawbacks of this community. Inge 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a heads up. The user has previously made similar edits to the article. 17:42, 30 June 2006 and 21:32, 30 June 2006. This one at 13:49, 9 August 2006 was the third one. Inge 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Inge, just checked other contributions to Turkey article, and users contributions to other articles. It seems to be, he likes this type of contributions. Cheers --Ugur Basak 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.