User talk:SergeWoodzing/Archive1

Let's be nice!

OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's write on article talk pages

before starting things here unecessarily - OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts!

OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's even supply/quote reliable sources!

OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's sign our posts!

With four of these ~ OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, go for it!

OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets use the sandbox for testing!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Queen consort of Canute I of Sweden. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Nyciscool (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I redirected before explaining on the talk page. It took me another 2 minutes to fix it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, welcome to the land of the logged-in

I probably wouldn't have been the best person to help you anyway, as the technical aspects of Wikipedia tend to be beyond me, but I'm always glad to at least make an attempt. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I've laughed myself half sick, by the way, over your "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which this user will not put." You may have to adopt me, if there's room under your wing. When can I vote for you for the Board? SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ingeborg of Norway

Have you read this book? There are hundreds of thousands of women who were mother of kings withouth having the title of queen mother. That it a title. She was not even de facto queen mother, only de facto mother of a king. If we intend to use that for all mother of kings who were not queen mothers, then there would be many more to add to this. This phrase: don't make changes just to make changes! is something you use toward me to make me sound like a non-serious editor, because I have insulted your pride in a previous discussion. You also lectured me because you were offended when I gave you advice earlier. I gave you advice to make an article as good as possible, not in the intent to insult you, and I will not be offended when you try to do the same with me. This is not very mature, nor is it very usefull of you as an editor. But if it is important to you to restore your pride this way, then I will happily let this be. I hope your damaged pride are somewath restored by this, so that you can return to the good work you have done before. And once again: I am very sorry that I have wounded your pride. Again: this was not my intention. As I am not myself interested in status or prestige, I may lack sensitivity toward these feelings in others. As a woman, I am well aware of the fact that men in academic circles tend to lock themselwes in their positions if their pride and prestige have been offended. Please try to keep wounded pride and such things out of your work as an editor, and not let them affect the so far very good work you do. My appology is sensere, and for your sake, and to give you the chance to revocer your hurt feelings, I will refrain from making further edits on wikipedia for a while. I will also try do avoid going in to discussions with you in the future. I am not hurt in any way wathsoever, I have the outmost respect for you, and I hope you can forgive all hurt feelings I may have caused you due to my insensitivity. Please forgive me. I do not require any reply from you, in this page or in the Ingeborg- and queen mother pages, and will not look for any replys on these pages either: if you write them, I will no read them. Please let us cut all further contact: I said I was not interested in prestige, and I ment it, so to me, such discussions will mean nothing more than two people making themselwes feel bad. Again: my appologies! Regards, --85.226.43.148 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Helena Mattsson

I'm not certain it's vandalism, per se, in that I suspect it's well-intentioned. It looks to me like he thinks he has a picture that would be better than the one in there now, and can't figure out how to put it in. Of course, it's likely that if he does have such an image, it's non-free and therefore unsuitable for use here. Anyway, I've reverted his most recent round of edits and left him a note on his talk page; hopefully we'll get this straightened out. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Swedish administrators

I don't know of any offhand, and this search to find admins at the Swedish Wikipedia who are also editors here didn't turn up any names that I recognized. This fellow is an admin both here and at sv-wiki, so he might be somebody to ask, though he hasn't been editing much lately (and doesn't have e-mail enabled). Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am really sorry

I am really sorry that you interpreted my admission of possibly being dense and having paroquial views as being a snide attempt to accuse you of accusing me of it. Fact is that I am sometimes dense and that we all have a tendency to being paroquial in our views sometimes. When i said that I may be dense I meant that it may be obvious that there is a more global view, but that I am somehow not seeing it possibly because of my admittedly paroquial outlook on the description of Danish history. I really was not trying to be snide or pick a fight with you. I apologize for coming off as sarcastic and unforthcoming - it was NOT my intention.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you prove yourself to be a gentleman. I am very sensitive about having any messages left here that are not necessary. This one was quite welcome. Thank you! I hope we can cooperate on some future work. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So do I!·Maunus·ƛ· 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kings of many places

You will find much support at WP:NCNT, which explains that we choose to title articles with simple forms, like James I of England, not James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland - and why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you will be interested in Talk:Hans of Denmark#Move to John of Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Brown nomination

How and where can one comment on your review of James Brown (with which I agree)? I would like to improve (shorten) the one image caption you mentioned to neutralize it and mention that so had been done as a comment under your point about it in your review. I would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

You can either go to Talk:James Brown/GA1 or to Talk:James_Brown and click on the [Edit] buttons. You can create a new section by using three =, as in ===New section===. I hope that helps. SilkTork *^YES! 12:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Queen consorts

Well, sorry about that - of course I did not mean to be rude. I was just trying to explain why I considered your suggestion to be impracticable. I apologise for the other user, who should know better. Deb (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I was quite taken aback by the hostility from that end. Gloomy forecast for me to do much good with royalty articles, huh? Since I hate to argue with people who are (habitually?) nasty. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image problems

Wow, you weren't kidding! I just deleted the lot of them instead of flooding PUF with what are surely images stolen from around the Web. The uploader has also been blocked for a while. Thanks for the heads-up. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello, Serge! I can see you are very interested in Swedish royalty, so I'd like to know what's your opinion on gender equality in the House of Bernadotte.

I suppose that you support equal primogeniture. My favourite type of primgeniture is cognatic (male-preferance) primgeniture. I do not like agnatic (male-only) primogeniture because it is nice to see a female monarch from time to time; however, I do not like equal primogeniture either because it is not equal enough.

The engagement of the Crown Princess of Sweden made me think about the future of the House of Bernadotte. Dniel will not be Crown Prince of Sweden and I can partially understand that (though wives of heirs apparent share their spouse's title), but how is that justified? Daniel will probably not be king either (though wives of kings are queens and Carl XVI Gustaf's wife is queen). That's why I don't like equal primogeniture - it's not equal. Husbands of queens regnant are not styled as kings because it is presumed that the masculine title of king outranks the feminine title of queen. Is that gender equality? Is this inequality somehow justified in Sweden?

Also, the Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland's future husband won't be prince of Sweden. On the other hand, it wouldn't make sense for her brother's wife not to be princess (assuming her brother marries with the consent). However, if the future Duchess of Värmland is made a princess, the issue of inequality will (or should) definitely arise.

What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna! I agree with you whole-heartedly about the half-hearted pseudo-equality as it is developing in Sweden, especially in the last step with the almost shocking news that Bergström will not be prince. Unfortunately this kind of half-heartedness is rather typical in Sweden. Things started getting that way, and have gotten worse and worse, since King Gustaf V decided not to have a coronation back in 1907. Deteriorated to the point where the current king sat next to the Throne (on a fancy chair) when Victoria was installed in 1995 as of age to be regent, which I thought was embarassing and looked ridiculous. Though 80% of the people want the monarchy the Swedish royals and their court keep treading on ice which is imaginarily thin (as felt by them). They are aware that anything they might do that could be considered too much will be used against them very loudly by political opponents.

Re: being King consort, I feel that is a matter of history and language more than equality. Prince consort has already been pretty firmly established, as has king for rulers exclusively. Principally, however, of course you are right there too. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PS - Generally, re: inheritance of any and all kinds, I think female such would have made more sense even in our culture (as it has in many other societies in anthropology), but that is actually a more utopian thought. Today, I think male inheritance makes more sense than before, with the condition that there now always should be DNA tests involved whenever any inheritance of major importance comes up. Here I do like more recent Swedish legislation giving full inheritance to any child born in or out of wedlock (you cannot write your children out of your will in Sweden). SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of your statements - and I mean all. The way they (most of European monarchs) treat tradition and monarchy is disgusting. Discarding coronation is also a shame. They suddenly decided that it was not democratic. What's undemocratic about coronation? Is the UK undemocratic? Sure, it is unequal and unfair for a younger male to precede his older sister, but monarchy is meant to be unequal and unfair; is it fair for someone to be head of state just because of his/her ancestry? My point is: if they keep going towards equality, Sweden will end up as en elective monarchy. I am a monarchist, but if I can't have a traditionally unequal and unfair monarchy, I would rather have a republic than a Scandinavian type of monarchy.

Yes, prince consort has already been firmly established, but so has been agnatic primogeniture. If the latter is abolished on the basis of not being neutral, why was the former kept? I know we're right, but is this inequality somehow justified in Sweden? Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I might attempt to get that last question to go public in Sweden when we get a little closer to these marriage events. Thank you for inspiring me to do so! SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't thank me now; thank me when I remind you of that in a couple of months :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Kounting Karls

So, if I understand — Karl Knutsson knew his proper number was II, and put that on his wife's gravestone; but the next Karl (perhaps unaware of this) called himself IX, and his predecessors were retrospectively renumbered. How do you like my latest change? —Tamfang (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The version before my error was a bit ambiguous: it said II was the first to use a number, but didn't explicitly say what number he used. —Tamfang (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All correctly understood and very nicely fixed now. Thank you! # IX intentionally exaggerated the importance of his name by adding 6 fictitious Carls to the list between him and # II; he and later Carls also tried to cover up that tombstone info which was not published until 1820. The stone is still there today and quite legibly reads that she was the wife of Caroli Secundi. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Between him and II, or before I? —Tamfang (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's is a very sharp question. It is generally thought that Carl IX knew he was actually Carl III but added Carls before him for his own glorification. The subsequent and consequential tradition of numbering Carl I as VII and Carl II as VIII would however be based on the 6 having been counted as having existed before Carl I, which they did not. Carl I (Sweartgarson) of course never used his (correct) numeral of I because he didn't know there would ever be more Carls after him. The name was unusual and relatively new in Scandinavia then, having meandered in due course into the nomenclature there via Germany, it is thought, after Charlemagne's reign as emperor. SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

English name forms of Swedish royals

That would be an entirely non-controversial and useful addition. Go for it! In fact, if the English name form is more common among English-language sources, we should use it as the title of the article. For example, Rikissa of Sweden should be moved to Richeza of Sweden because the name Richeza is more familiar to the speakers of English; it should also be consistent with the name of her daughter, Elisabeth Richeza of Poland, and of another Polish queen, Richeza of Lotharingia. Surtsicna (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Hope all goes well with it. Re: retitling some articles, I will get back to you on that with kind of a comprehensive proposal I am thinking up to bring all the Swedish royals into a more consistent format - Catherine, not Karin for example. (Don't go worrying about those maiden names/counties for the consorts now, that won't be a part of it). At first I thought I would make new title suggestions as I go along, looking through each article in alphabetical order, and fix a host of Swedishisms etc, but changing some of the main titles first is probably a better idea. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. I am always frustrated when somebody claims that a medieval person's real name is the name used today by the people who live in that person's country. How can one argue that Wikipedia should refer to a certain Juana (known as Juanita to her family) who was christened Iohanna and who married into England and became Jane by her real name?! Anyway, I'm glad we agree. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What's nice in this regard about Swedes is that not one of them had a legal name (or spelling of same) until a name law was passed in 1901. So before then, there were no "real names" there that can be forced upon people who use other languages and their phonetics. After 1900 (as a cut-off time) I am usually very particular about adhering to legal spellings (Gustaf not Gustav for example) and not to translate any Swedish names. We should thus name 20th and 21st century Swedes (and others), I think, exactly by the names they had/have in their legal ID's. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My work on all this has come to a screeching halt. FYI, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't allow anyone being rude - and reverting non-vandalism without explanation is very rude. Don't give up! Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good news toward the end of a heavy day. Thx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is far more important for us to use legitimate and phonetically viable English-language name forms in titling articles than to count usage elsewhere in each and every case. Obviously, the lesser-known royals of Sweden rarely, if ever, have have been written about in English by native-English-speakers, rather they have been covered in English usually, if at all, by Swedes with (1) little or no knowledge of the legitimate English name forms they could/should have used; and/or (2) with little or no interest in researching such things to do a better job; and/or (3) with some interest in promoting the use of Swedish phonetics in English at the dire expense of the English reader who knows no Swedish. I feel confident that known and respected authorities (to me at least) like Debrett's and Burke's Peerage would agree with using English name forms without ever tallying up what Swedes have written in English. I invite any constructive comments to these assumptions of mine here, comments primarlity then by users basically qualified to write about English and the feasible use of this language. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The queenly title is neccessary only when more than one princess of a certain country bore the same name. There were three Polish princesses named Richeza, so the titles had to be Richeza of Poland, Queen of Sweden, Richeza of Poland, Queen of Castile and Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary. Since this Richeza was the only Richeza of Denmark, the current title is just fine. We should avoid long, clumsy titles; eg. Catherine of Aragon is much better than Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think consistency is much more important between these namesake queens and that the addition of "Queen of..." always is a good idea: a necessary clarification of who these women are and not at all clumsy. Thus, I do not agree with you re: Catherine either. Only some British people might know that there has only been one Catherine of Aragon in history and that she, thus named, must be that Queen of England we may have heard of. I don't think en.WP is supposed to cater mainly to what Brits might know. There is no British WP (that I know of - perhaps there should be?).

Seems you could be content in using their nationalities/names before marriage, as I know you are adamant about (and I have conceded on quite remorsefully), and that you then might not want to confuse things even more, in my opinion, by refraining - on rather flimsy grounds (to me, sorry!) - from having their most important position in the article titles. If in one title, let's have it in all, so a majority of readers will have any chance at all to figure out what we are up to! I am a great lover of the strictest possible consistency because I have seen it triumph unquestionably over contrived inconsistency thousands of times in creating much more clarity and much smoother usage. Please forgive me!

I also believe just as much in a global perspective for all WP projects as I do in using the best possible English to reflect it.

Looks like you are not in the least afraid that the ghost of a slighted Richeza of Denmark is going to haunt you (I would be), while the other queens rest contentedly in their graves, properly titled in the #1 international language of our times? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Before we get deep into this discussion, you should propose including queenly titles here. (Un)fortunatly, I don't think you'll be supported. Why? Because including queenly titles in one group of articles and excluding kingly titles in another group of articles doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the title should be the person's most common name, rather than a whole description of the person. I do not understand your argument regarding Catherine of Aragon; I am Bosnian, not British, and when I open the article about Catherine of Aragon, the lead sentence explains perfectly that she was Queen of England. The title doesn't need to be Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England, Princess of Wales, wife of Henry VIII, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella for me to understand that she was Queen of England, Princess of Wales, wife of Henry VIII, and daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. Had she been the only Catherine in the world, the article would be titled simply Catherine. She is not, of course, the only Catherine, but she is the only Catherine of Aragon and thus further disambiguation is unnecessary.

Regarding maiden names... I understand your concern that these women are somehow deprived, but you have to understand that Wikipedia is not able to invent names for people. Every respected historian refers to Anne Boleyn as Anne Boleyn (not Anne of England, as Anne of England is another person). The same is true for other queens consort; we cannot suddenly decide to refer to Blanche of Castile as Blanche of France because a) she is best known as Blanche of Castile, b) other women are known as Blanche of France. I hope you understand my point.

About ghosts... I am more afraid that the ghosts of the Polish Richeza's will haunt me because their articles are inconsistent with most other articles about queens, but they must be inconsistent for the sake of disambiguation. I hope Their Late Majesties will forgive me :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The more you argue these points, the less I agree. But I must say your excellent English had me fooled. Congratulations, sincerely! You are as good as native. I dearly wish a lot of other people who imagine they are, were. You didn't have to ridicule my POV like this: "Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England, Princess of Wales, wife of Henry VIII, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella". I get your POV without your resorting to that kind of nonsense. Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England would do just fine. And bringing up kings is of course almost totally irrelevant, except perhaps where Eric of Pomerania should be Eric of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (there has only been one such of note) or at least Eric of Pomerania, King of Scandinavia. Quite simply put, the pivotal fact, for their notoriety, that these women were queens and the pivotal countries of which they were queens belong in their names if they are to be called (wrongly in my opinion) what their names were before marriage but definitely were not after marriage. I am writing something to put on my user page about some of these things so I don't have to repeat them over and over. It is excrutiatingly tiresome. I don't know how you can stand it. That little text will soon be finished. Till then, good-bye. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking that I was a native speaker of English. It means a lot to me. If only you knew how young I am... Anyway, sorry for ridiculing your POV, it certainly wasn't my intention. However, your POV (as well as my POV) is a POV and as such it doesn't belong to Wikipedia.

The more we argue, the less we agree. This discussion should be led by more people on a more appropriate place - here.

Let me know whenever a non-native speaker of English tries to push a nationalistic POV. Bye! Surtsicna (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You have asked for my oppinion, so I will give it. I think queens should be refferred to by their maiden names. For example: Marie Antoinette was never called ”Marie Antioinette of France”. She was called : ”Marie Antioinette, Queen of France, or : ”Queen Marie Antoinette of France”, but never  : ”Marie Antioinette of France”. During her life time, she was the only queen in Fance, and known only as Marie Antoinette, or ”the Queen”; not even then as ”Marie Antioinette of France”. ”Queen” is a title, not a name. In history books, and in reference books, queen are called by the form: ”Marie Antoinette of Austria ”, or perhaps only by their first name. The term ”Marie Antoinette of France” reffers to a Princess of France, not to a Queen of France. If whe always used the form: ”Marie Antoinette of Austria, Queen of France”, we will have problems. There may be many with the same names and position. This we can avoid by adding the years (1755-1793), to a princess with the same name. The term : ”Marie Antoinette of Austria, Queen of France” is only used when there are two princesses with the same name. If the dates of birth and deaths are known, those can also be used. If we use this term for all queens, even when it is not necessary, then we would have titles such as: ”Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp, Queen of Sweden and Norway”, and that is too long. You say, that queens should be called by their queen-title because that would be polite, as it was their highest title. In that case, there a royal princesses who married counts and dukes. Would you then have them be called by their birth titles, because their married titles are lower? In that case, there would be different rules depending on the status of marriage for different princesses, and that would be chaos. This is my opinion of the matter. I am pleased with wikipedia’s current policy as it is, and I have no wish to contest it. If you wich to contest it, then of course you may do so, and see if there is such a support for your POV that this policy can be changed. In that case, I will follow the new policy even if I don’t agree with that. That is all I have to say in the matter, I’m affraid. I am not very interested in discussions, and seldom participate in them. I wish you good luck! The very best wishes,--Aciram (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Serge, frequent use does outrank English as sometimes the non-English form of the name is the most commonly used form of the name among reliable English language sources. For example, the article about Charlemagne should never use the English form of its name, which is Charles the Great, as he is simply better known as Charlemagne (even in English and way better known, for that matter). It would also be silly to refer to Maria II of Portugal as Mary II of Portugal - if you do a quick Google Book Search, you'll see that the former name is 60 times more popular than the latter name. Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Charlemagne must be considered an English name officially adopted for him in English centuries ago. He has never been called Charles the Great in English (I know I reacted to that in grade school History already). Charlemagne isn't even any language, anyway, today. It's all his and only his. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the e-mail... There is a E-mail this user button on the left. Can that be used? Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - thanx I agree! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Re your edit summary [1] – see lede at Wiktionary. Ad hominem arguments usually turn out to be counter-productive. Cheers, Elphion (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that people who write English poorly, as that particular user does (notwithstanding my possible error with the slang word lede) should not dominate, nay own, certain articles where they obviously do damage to English-language content with less than knowledgeable POV. I feel that it is important for us to protect en.WP against such destructive editing. But I am about to give up and pull out. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments about my user page opinions

Please see the new "My opinions..." texts on my user page which cover most of what I have to say on biographic article naming issues. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

About moving discussions...

Re: Talk:Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark. I appreciate your asking about moving a discussion to the bottom but I think it would be appreciated if you waited until after you asked your question to do so, rather than asking and doing it at the same time. It disrupts how the conversation naturally progressed and may confuse other editors. It confused me until I looked at the revision history several times. Thank you! 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You err, dear IP. I did not move that discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry. Please accept my most sincere apologies! 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Serge, it is not prohibited and there is a very good reason: to link the offending issue to the discussion directly related to it. Go to Frederik,_Crown_Prince_of_Denmark and look at the infobox with Frederick's picture in it. Where it says "House House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg[1][2][3][4][dubious – discuss]", "discuss" links to Talk:Frederik,_Crown_Prince_of_Denmark#Dubious automatically. The discussion heading should be "dubious" so the link on the article page links to the discussion. Again, please show me where the changing of a discussion heading is prohibited (you yourself attempted to offer a compromise by changing the heading without restoring it to the original form) when the change is meant to aid editors in contributing to the discussion. There is more concern with Law Lord's formatting by moving parts of the discussion which were so confusing it made it appear as if you did it. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If sufficient reason is not given and if there are no rules against changing the discussion heading to better aid interest editors in finding the relevant thread, I will change the heading after a little while and made the others into subheadings. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you ever want any heading changed, ask an administrator to do it for you! I am trying to give you very good advice here so that no one can accuse you of being disruptive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not ask an administrator to do something that is not an administrative function. It is disruptive to the Wikipedian process to go to an admin each and every time a heading must be changed when it is a function any user can perform. Thus far with regard to the change of the heading, you are the only person implying that I am being disruptive and therefore are creating that attitude by agreeing with, yet reverting, a heading change. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Headings are hardly ever changed (!!!) so that isn't likely to disrupt any administrator. People need to be able to find old headings they have seen before. I am not implying that you are being disruptive, I am trying to give you good advice so that no one (else) can accuse you of being disrputive. There is a big difference. Administrators are supposed to help us with very unusual things like changing a heading that has been in on a disussion page for over a year. That's why they are administrators. Anyway the new heading format is fine the way it is now, as I hope you will agree. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind remarc. It's always nice too be appreciated.--Aciram (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Carl/Karl/Charles

First of all, let me note that, in answering your question, I am so far outside my area of expertise that I can't even see it from here (hey, over there, is that a Premier of Alberta? No, sorry, it was just a dust mote in my eye. My mistake). At a glance, I would say that it makes some sense to change them to Carl; the Swedish royal court seems to be a fairly important source to consider, though of course there's also the question of what other English language sources say. I'd suggest that this might be a case where boldness is ill-advised, though; is there a reasonably central article whose talk page you could raise the topic? If so, let me know and I'll do what I can to moderate discussion on it. Steve Smith (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I had already understood that boldness is out on this one. Hope your eye is better so you'll be able to read what we're going to start on one of the kings' talk pages soon. Your being moderator, maybe even like a boxing referee (watch that eye!), will be greatly appreciated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure - just drop me a link when you've started the conversation. Steve Smith (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles VIII of Sweden

I like what you've done here. Do you have a citable source (not necessarily an English source) that attributes this poem to Karl? Thanks! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment! Yes, there are several. Lately: Dick Harrison in Karl Knutsson, en biografi ISBN 91-89442-58-X p. 13. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Do you know this guy? I think we might need to keep an eye on his remarkable arrogance. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll withhold comment on any flame wars that may be developing. He can be a little rough around the edges at times (can't we all?), but he is very knowledgeable about early Icelandic history and other Old Norse-type stuff, and he has made a lot of valuable contributions around here. I would just keep WP:COOL and encourage everyone else to do the same. Thanks for the ref, by the way. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also noticed his wonderful qualifications on those eubjects as well as his fine contributions. Where he crosses a line, in my opinion, is in acting like a big expert on the English language as well. So many users like that make life really miserable for us at times on en.WP, especially when we appreciate them for other expertise. Thanx for you candid reply! Much appreciated. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I hope it's not becoming a problem. By the way, while I consider myself proficient, I'm no expert, and if the 's convention is preferred, feel free to change it back. I just did it the way I learned in school. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Margaret I of Denmark

Your change is fine. The text of the reads as she was just a regent and defacto monarch only. Everything else on the page treats her a full monarch so it is not that clear to me what she was. Either way the article could be better written.^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Daniel Westling, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Tomas e (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I am well aware of the designation but screwed up that time. It was not intentional. Thanks for pointing it out! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hedwig, Helwig

Hi Serge - I've had a look at that dispute, and I'm afraid that I don't have much of any use to say. It's unfortunately true that Wikipedia lacks any reliable mechanism to make sure that the "correct" side wins content disputes. Whether Helwig or Hedwig is more correct, I'm not sure, but the plurality of editors taking an active interest in the subject seem to think that Hedwig is the correct English name. That leaves you with the option of either generating more interest in the discussion (without running afoul of WP:CANVASS, which I'm afraid is likely to be difficult given then, ah, esoteric nature of the subject, or accepting the result, even as you don't agree with it. This latter option is a necessary part of working in disputed areas of Wikipedia, which is part of why I try to stay away from disputed areas of Wikipedia. As a side note, discussion is getting rather heated there. I don't really think that the accusations of personal attacks there is warranted, but I'd suggest that all of you try to tone down the rhetoric slightly. Sorry I couldn't be more useful. Steve Smith (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid remarks! Just so we are clear on this in principle: Let's say there was a 13th century queen of some country who had the very unusual name of Malia. The fact that that was her actual name was not in doubt by anyone. Somewhere, in some odd writing long ago, somebody incorrectly translated her name to English as Maria (not Malia), an error which then spread to a few other publications in English, whereas everyone else (of the very few that have written about her at all) in every language including English have her correct name: Malia. Based on those few erroneous publications which call her Maria in English only, two users, canvassing each other, want to change the title of the article about her on en.WP to Maria. That is exactly what's going on in this case. Are you saying there is no way to put a stop to something so destructive to the reputation of this encyclopedia? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a way, of course! You can cite some sources to prove that her actual name was Helvig and that somewhere, in some odd writing long ago, somebody incorrectly translated her name to Hedwig. So far you haven't cited any source, even though I asked you to cite a source five times. How can you expect us to overrule what historians and academics say in favour of what you say? Surtsicna (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve: There are no books about this queen in English. She is mentioned briefly in a few works and has been given the wrong name (not a translation - the wrong name) in a few. Every other publication in the world that mentions her gives the right name - such as all the Swedish-language sources cited for the en.WP article and the German, Dutch, French, Norwegian and Swedish WP articles, reliable German genealogical registers (not amateur blogs), etc. I am not going to engage in such ridiculous work as trying to find sources in English (where she is hardly ever mentioned) to prove what her name was. Everybody serious knows that already. No "historians and academics" have made the error. Not one. I am now adding one academic historian as a reference to her correct name in the article. It is the only place I know of where her name is mentioned in English by any "academic and historian". There are plenty of places all over the internet where one can find facts to confirm that these are two different names that cannot be translated back and forth betwixt each other. If this doesn't suffice, I give up. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no books about this queen in Swedish either (no book about drottning Helvig) and I'm pretty sure that there are no books about her in any other language. She is mentioned as Hedwig by several books which to focus on Swedish history (eg. Kingship and state formation in Sweden, 1130-1290 , which mentions her 11 times and Politics and reformations: communities, polities, nations, and empires, which was published by the University of Michigan). Therefore, please don't distort the facts by saying that she is mentioned briefly ina few works and that she is hardly ever mentioned by English language sources, when there are English speaking historians who devoted severa pages of their work to describe the importance of coronation of Hedwig of Holstein. Now let me quote User:Pmanderson regarding the sources currently used in the article: It would help the article to have English sources; in the process, we might do better than nineteenth-century patriotism and coffee-table books on the Queens of Sweden. If historians and academics who call her Hedwig of Holstein didn't make the error, who did? The only place you know of where her name is mentioned in English is written by a Swede now why would a Swede bother to refer to Hedwig by the name which is most commonly used to refer to her in English when he can call her the way Swedes call her? Let me remind you once again of what you said to me: Swedish monarchs] have been covered in English usually, if at all, by Swedes with (1) little or no knowledge of the legitimate English name forms they could/should have used; and/or (2) with little or no interest in researching such things to do a better job; and/or (3) with some interest in promoting the use of Swedish phonetics in English at the dire expense of the English reader who knows no Swedish. Surtsicna (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna: You are no longer welcome here on my talk page. For any reason. Ever. Please respect that! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I.P. edits to Swedish Royal Family

Somebody beat me to it. For future reference, the simplest way to revert a bunch of revisions at once is as follows:

1. Click the "history" tab.
2. Click the time and date of the version that you want to revert back to (in this case, you'd click the date next to your name, which for me is "03:46, 23 October 2009" but is probably something like "08:46, 23 October 2009" for you).
3. Click the "edit this page" tab.
4. Explain in the edit summary field that you are reverting edits and why.
5. Click "save page" without making any additional changes. Steve Smith (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful, as always. Thank you sir! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thanks

I blew it, thanks for correcting me. I haven't a clue what I was reading or thinking when I reversed this. Anyways, thanks for catching my error on this, much appreciated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Gustav III

Thanks for the heads up. This should be really easy to resolve, as you can see on the discussion page of the article. I've left it to the IP to resolve it himself. wp:v will lead us to a better article. Rather then vague "rumors", we'll probably just quote an unpublished manuscript (FWIW) followed by a scholarly reference and leave it at that.--Work permit (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi; could you give your opinion here? Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with editor Fernande

Serge, there was recently a discussion in the talk page of article Gaston, comte d'Eu [2] about and editor called Fernandoe who insists on changing the meaning of sourced text although the source does not says what he writes. To be more clear, he insists on adding "surnames" to royals.[3] [4] The discussion, as you can see since you were also part of it, agreed that his editions do not make any sense. Worse: he did not bother to participate in it. I am tired of serving as nothing more as a watch dog reverting his edits. Something must be done about him and fast. --Lecen (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration and support your views. Said so, hoping to help. But I am not the right person to deal with this directly. Hope you can get a complaint lodged somehow that will do what we need done. Try contracting an Arbiter (I think WP calls them Arbitrators)! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sibylla or Sybilla ?

I've tweaked her page a little, but find her name spelt both ways. Which is correct ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinClay (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The one that the article already has, as per Swedish Royal Court], gravestone etc etc etc etc etc etc. Burke's listed a granddaughter of hers as Sybilla in 1977, but I find this very strange since one would think that gal's mother Margaretha would have used her own mother's spelling. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnus I of Sweden (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Magnus I of Sweden (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Magnus I of Sweden. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I did things in the wrong sequence, but I've fixed it now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark

The political correctness of today's English-language, is getting redicules (see Juan Carlos I of Spain & Margrethe II of Denmark). -- GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's all there were at stake, I'd agree with you. I'm not much for political correctness myself.

The actual issue in this case is that in the old days (about pre-1900) there were no legal names and no legal spellings. Thus you could basically spell a person's name however you chose and translate it into whatever proper exonym you wished in whatever language in which you were writing about him/her.

That is no longer the case since everyone, including royal people, now have legal names which are only correct in any language if they are spelled exactly the way those persons are registered with the authorities where they reside and are citizens - these are what I call legal spellings and cannot reasonably be translated or fiddled with, in my opinion.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is legally registered with that name, whereas he can still be counted in English as Charles XVI in history. Out of respect, one would use the legal names and spellings when referring to these people, just like you probably would be pleased if someone went to the trouble to spell your name right, according to its legal form (or be displeased about someone finding out your exact real name).

WP is very fact-oriented (for better or for worse). That's the whole case here. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad. John Charles I of Spain would be more consistant with other Spanish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but it looks like you didn't read a word I wrote about this, with best intentions. What a waste of my time and effort! SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Christina

Hi. Could you briefly explain why you removed a portait from the lead and replaced it with an image that does not clearly depict her face? I don't understand your edit. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The portrait is only a fantasy drawing and is thus not likely to be a likeness of her at all. Thus I found it inappropriate to use it as a main portrait of Christina. It has been removed before (14 sept 2009) by another user. Don't you think a contemporay portrait sculpture is better to use up top, even if there is no close-up of her face there? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference, as you see it, between a 19th century drawing that clearly depicts the face of Christina and a modern sculpture that does not? And, why would you choose to use one over the other in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the words "fantasy image" here, in the new caption and on the Commons image page. This (lovely) picture has also been removed from the sv.WP article for the same reason. A fantasy image does not "clearly depict her face" because it is a fantasy image. If admitted here as a lead portrait, then a precedent is set that would enable anyone to draw any face, claim it is a portrait of someone and add it to WP as such. As I see it, WP wouldn't want that. It was mainly out of respect for you that I kept the picture at the end of the article, though that too may actually be inappropriate, due to the questionable relevance of a picture that is (1) not a likeness and (2) hardly well known artwork. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS If by "modern sculpture" you mean the statue at Stockholm Palace, I think is appropriate for use to illustrate her valiant defense of that seat of government. If by "modern sculpture" you mean the church image, you missed the word "contemporary" there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't missed a thing. What is the difference between a "fantasy" image (drawing) made in the 19th century and a contemporary rendering of her face in a modern sculpture? P.S. I couldn't help notice that the image you restored was uploaded by my old friend, EmilEikS. Do we meet again? Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary and modern are opposites in most cases. A contemporary image of a person was made when that person lived. The church sculpture is far from "modern" - it was created in the era of Christina's lifetime and is likely to be a likeness of her. Who uploaded what is irrelevant to WP work, unless you are on some sort of personal campaign regarding some users, pro or con. I'm not. If that user is your "old friend", what's the problem anyway? The meaning of your last question is unclear. Have we met? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. In the context of art, contemporary art can be a subset of modern art (and exceeds the boundaries of the category into the present day) and the words are used as synonyms outside that context (contemporary, modern). You appear to be thinking of the word contemporaneous, not contemporary. Since EmilEikS wrote that description, should I assume that you are him? The current description reads "Kristina Nilsdotter Gyllenstierna (wife of regent Sten Sture the Younger) depicted in a contemporary altar sculpture at West Aros (Västerås) Cathedral." To avoid confusion with the term contemporary art, it should instead say, "An altar sculpture at West Aros Cathedral contemporary with Kristina Nilsdotter Gyllenstierna." Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue words with you at length - never used contemporaneous in my 63 years. Never had to. Have taught English in North America. The WP link is redirected to contemporary and Webster says the words are synonymous. And I don't understand your user id questions, why you want to assume things, nor how any of that is relevant to WP work and this article. Always a good idea to clarify things though, so I will update Commons according to your suggestion, unless you already have done so. Thanks for helping (though I feel you could have been clearer and a little nicer about it at the outset)! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This link might interest you. The word is used widely throughout literature. Now that we have that settled, is there a reason we can't use the portrait in the lead section? Do you really believe that it gives the reader a false impression of what she looks like? Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that some other writers use the longer word, and I ask you very kindly to please stop acting as my teacher. I only said that I have never had any reason to use it myself (finding it, and many such long words, a bit contrived, if you will allow me an opinion of my own), as contemporary will do just fine in all the same contexts as this. My reasoning and opinion are unchanged about the lead portrait. No fantasy drawings. It sets a very bad example. And yes, my knowledge of this kind of drawing from romantic Swedish magazines in the 1880's says that we have no reason to believe there is any accurate likeness of Christina whatsoever in that face. I wouldn't have moved it down if that were not the case, I promise you sincerely. I don't edit just for the pleasure of correcting others, without any knowledge of the matter at hand. The altar sculpture is the only face we have of hers that is likely to be an accurate portrait. I will see if I can take a real close-up of it for WP next time I'm in West Aros. - What she looked like you surely must mean, since what she looks like in her grave in Trosa, Sweden, destroyed by fire in 1773, must certainly be a rather ghastly mess by now. Re: the image you like here, Mr. Behrens (otherwise totally unknown) drew a pleasant face for the magazine publisher, nothing less, and certainly nothing more. Here is another example of such artwork, which seems to take after her husband's face, not hers, and has no historical value of any kind except, as 19th-century magazine art. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument against using the drawing in the lead section. From what I can tell, it is based on her likeness, and is accurate enough for our purposes. One cannot make out enough detail in the sculpture to get a decent image of her face, and Wikipedia rarely uses sculptures as images of a biographical person. The "fantasy" drawing, as you describe it, gives the reader a clear image of the subject, and it is used appropriately in the lead sections of the Spanish, French, and Italian language Wikipedia articles. Could you provide one good reason why we should not use it? With all due respect, it is beyond the realm of the absurd that one could possibly argue that variations on this image are more useful or informative to the reader than this drawing. Do you honestly believe you have a good argument for preferring the sculpture over the drawing in the lead? I will probably drop this argument, as I have more important things to do, but I'm not satisfied with the sculpture in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a likeness, you say "from what I can tell"? Please give a source for that! How can you tell that? It cannot be considered a likeness with any measure of reliability. A complete fantasy drawing "is accurate enough for our purposes" and "gives the reader a clear image of the subject"? What subject? Certainly not the subject that it is not a likeness of. Anyone can draw any face and claim it is a portrait of someone and "accurate enough for our purposes"? If the only accurate portrait we have is a sculpture, we should make a fantasy drawing, that does not look like the subject treated, and use it because "Wikipedia rarely uses sculptures as images of a biographical person"? We should use the fantasy drawing because a few editors at "Spanish, French, and Italian language Wikipedia" found it and used it when it was the only image available? If there was no known portrait of Liliuokalani, could I draw something very nice of what I think she might have looked like, and post it as her portrait for her WP article? Unfathomable argumeents, as I see the responsibility we have to provide valuable, reliable and relevant imagery for these articles. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no known portrait of a biographical figure, and you drew a portrait of what you think she looked like based on existing works, yes, you could use it in a Wikipedia article, and in fact, we use user-created content, including photographs, images, drawings, sketches, graphs, tables, and other works in many articles. I'm sorry, but I thought you were aware of this fact. Evidently, you were not. It's best not to assume. If you have questions, feel free to ask. The fact is, there is nothing whatsoever preventing me from placing the drawing in the lead section, and you have not presented a single valid argument for removing it. I know the real reason you restored the image of a sculpture to the lead section, and it's not a coincidence that User:EmilEikS was the original uploader. I've got nothing against you or your edits, but I don't like the specious arguments. You claim that we can't use this 19th century image in the lead section because it is a "fantasy drawing", but all art is "fantasy", and this particular drawing is used by the ancestors of Christina Gyllenstierna on their own website, which was created to commemorate and preserve her memory.[5] This appears to nullify whatever argument you once had. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion: I assume that you are referring to the page Christina_Gyllenstierna and the pictures here and here? The precedent set in other articles would suggest that the sculpture is the best picture to use in the infobox. Look, for example, at John of England or Edmund Ironside, in both of which much clearer portraits are available later in the article, yet are not used in the infobox. If the 19th century drawing were the only portrait available, then that would be acceptable (see, for example, Harold Harefoot), but since we do have an image that is contemporary, or almost so, with the subject, that should be preferred. I don't, incidentally, think that the term "fantasy drawing" is particularly useful or appropriate - none of the three articles on English kings I have cited above use it to describe the modern portraits.Anaxial (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the word "fantasy" from that caption as per your comment and explained more carefully. Thank you for helping! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anaxial, that's a reasonable assumption based on common sense, but I would like to point out a few things:

1. There's no discussion about image preference on Template talk:Infobox royalty. Do you know if this topic has been discussed elsewhere?
2. John of England is assessed as C-Class and Edmund Ironside as Start-Class. We should probably use GA and FA articles as examples.
3. I can find many FA and GA articles that use prefer to use newer depictions of a biographical subject. For example, Edward III of England (FA) appears to use a later painting to depict the monarch, rather than works created during his time or closer to his reign.[6] Manuel I Komnenos (FA) favors the use of several different later depictions, rather than a work produced during his lifetime.[7] The same is true of Offa of Mercia, which favors a later depiction rather than older works produced during his reign, and Jogaila (FA). I have an additional list of a dozen FA and GA articles to consider as well. In all of these examples, it appears that the later work was chosen to best represent the subject.
4. What does all of this mean? Each article must be treated on its own merits. The sculpture used in the lead section of Christina Gyllenstierna is small and of poor quality.[8] The drawings depict her character clearly and are based on other works displaying her visage. Apparently, her descendents prefer to use the drawing on their website. Why are we not using it in the same way? Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with removing the 19th century drawing from the article at Swedish WP calling it a "fantasy portrait" there on Oct 24 2009. Yet I am subjected to such slyly mysterious and faintly deprecating slurs as this above: "I know the real reason you restored the image of a sculpture to the lead section, and it's not a coincidence that User:EmilEikS was the original uploader.". Doesn't really make one very excited about continuing to contribute when a longtime user at English WP treats one like this. Why not come totally clean and reveal in full detail the personal reasons behind all this arguing? Or, even better, why not accept gracefully the third opinion given? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid there was a bit of bad communication between us, and I apologize for those comments. As for the third opinion, I do appreciate Anaxial's input. However, the reader would benefit from having the drawing in the lead as the sculpture provides a poor representation of Christina. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If it would be helpful, remember that you can make a Request for Comment if you want a wider range of opinions than just one third party can provide. Anaxial (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that important to me. The thing is, when I examine an article, I try to approach it as an editor and a reader. As an editor, I understand the reason why SergeWoodzing wants the sculpture in the lead. But, as a reader, I also understand why the drawing would work better. Finding a balance between editing and reading is an important part of writing articles. I simply want SergeWoodzing to consider both of these perspectives. That's all I ask. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems all 3 of us are in total agreement now in principle, and that is a very nice outcome, especially since this whole thing ended up on my talk page, whereas it probably should have been on the article's. Thank you both, in any case! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

P S: I would like to add that I find en.WP's Third Opinion option very helpful. I have only had very good results whenever I have used it so far. Am now going to suggest that it become available on sv.WP, where it is much needed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

LinnéStPeterMN.jpg

Hi there! ^_^ I noticed your edit of Carl Linnaeus adding File:LinnéStPeterMN.jpg to the posthumous honors gallery. I am just curious why you picked that specific image. Was it because it was in the tricentennial year? Was it because of the Swedish graduation cap? Some other reason? Thanks! -- Limulus (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking! There aren't very many statues/busts or other artwork of Swedes to be found in other countries, so I see this one as a rather unique testimonial of sorts to this man's international esteem. Any photo of that particular bust would have done (I was impressed when I saw it on location), but I thought the graduarion cap (invented as they were in his home town of Upsala) sort of shows his graduation to that esteem, and the fact that this was in 2007 didn't hurt either. Do you object? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: Did I take this in the article's top template too seriously: "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well."? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! :D I was genuinely curious as to why it was the one you picked (since there are SO many nice photos in the commons [9] and I should know since I spent way too much time working to organize them! ;) Thank you for your contribution and hope you can help more on the Linnaeus article. Also... you don't think it has too many images, do you? ^^; I tend to get a little carried away with pics... -- Limulus (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is developing very nicely and find nothing to object to there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay! :) P.S. Adjusted the caption somewhat; it now reads: "Bust at Gustavus Adolphus College adorned with a Swedish student cap, 2007." -- Limulus (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed it again a bit; in that section I now have "Gustavus Adolphus College began its eponymous Linnaeus Arboretum in 1973." and so I changed the caption on the image to read "Bust at the Linnaeus Arboretum adorned with a Swedish student cap, 2007." -- Limulus (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% correct though - the bust is on the general campus green, not at the arboretum. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I got that info from Linnaeus Arboretum: "The arboretum also has a number of other attractions which are as follows [...] Linnaeus Sculpture - Created by Paul T. Granlund, sculptor-in-Residence at Gustavus Adolphus College. The bust grows out of a linden tree" I will strike the arboretum mention from the caption. You might want to edit the arboretum article as you apparently know what's there :) -- Limulus (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am no arboretum expert. All I remember is that the bust is located along a walkway on the general campus green, not that I remember at or near the arboretum, certainly not in it. There was no tree there either - but most everything was destroyed in their tornado a number of years ago and e.g. the bust of Gustav II Adolph was found far away! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my! Better than what happened to the sculpture of Agassiz though ;) File:Agassiz in the Concrete.jpg -- Limulus (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Crud [10] :( -- Limulus (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange move link

{{help}} I need help here. The move-to link keeps reverting automatically back to Oscar, Prince Berndaotte but should be Carl Johan Bernadotte. Don't know why this keeps happening. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed; it's because it is a redirect.  Chzz  ►  13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was because the {{movereq}} template on Talk:Count Carl Johan Bernadotte of Wisborg had the incorrect link in it and the bot uses this template to update Wikipedia:Requested moves/current. Svick (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Delay in responding to you

Sorry, I can't give a comprehensive reply right now because it looks like my wife is having a baby... today! Appreciate your patience. Thparkth (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow - what a great reason to wait! Every good wish to the three of you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to self: May 12 if no objections by then, learn how & then move

• Prince Vilhelm, Duke of Södermanland - uncontroversial?  Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Inge I of Sweden - uncontroversial?  Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Helena (wife of Inge I of Sweden) to Helena (wife of Inge the Elder) - uncontriversial after husband's move?  Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Count Oscar Bernadotte of Wisborg - uncontroversial?  Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Count Carl Johan Bernadotte of Wisborg - uncontroversial?  Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I hope I'm no longer unwelcome. Since you have requested moving those articles, an administrator will move all except Helena (wife of Inge I of Sweden), usually within 10 days. I believe we should move Helena (wife of Inge I of Sweden) to Helena (wife of Inge the Elder) once Inge I of Sweden is moved to Inge the Elder. If there is anything else I can do to help you (perhaps teach you how to do something?), I'll be happy to. Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never moved an article but I think I can figure it out, now that I've started looking at it. Do you mean that when a move has been requested we are to wait for an admin to do it, but we can do the moves ourselves if we haven't requested them? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Users are encouraged to move articles themselves if they believe that nobody will oppose the move. However, if you move an article and somebody reverts the move, you should request it rather than engage in edit war, have a discussion with other users and then allow an uninvolved admin to decide whether the page should be moved. Sometimes you won't be able to move an article yourself; this happens usually if the article had been moved to several different titles. In such cases, you have to request a move. Surtsicna (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't clearly answer this part of my question: "Do you mean that when a move has been requested we are to wait for an admin to do it?". Would be nice to have a definite answer on that, since I read you as requiring me to wait for an administrator to do those 4 moves, inferring that it would be inappropriate for me to do them myself. Also, by whom (where can I read in WP policy) that "Users are encouraged to move articles themselves if they believe that nobody will oppose the move" - ? Not that I don't trust you, but in one place I think you are telling me I now have to wait for an admnistrator to do 4 moves that I believe nobody will oppose, because I requested them, and then you tell me I am "encouraged" to do them myself. Confusing, don't you agree? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: The wording here is hardly any clearer. We are told to do uncontroversial moves ourselves, but also to request them, but not why the might require assistance if we do request them. ??? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Do you mean that when a move has been requested we are to wait for an admin to do it?" To be honest, I've never seen anyone move a page after requesting the move of that page. It simply wouldn't make sense! If the community isn't opposed to your proposal, an administrator will move it. If the community is opposed, your move would surely be reversed immediately. You don't have to wait for an administrator to move 4 pages whose moves you have requested; I am simply advising you to wait. You are encouraged to move articles yourself if you believe that there is a better title and that other users won't oppose (see Wikipedia:Be bold). You may also be interested in Help:Moving a page and Wikipedia:How to move a page. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. How does one request a move to be reversed? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The same way one requests a move to be done. You've already done it, so you are familiar with the process. By the way, I think you should be aware of this. Please don't continue the discussion with the IP on my talkpage; I just thought I should let you know because I hate talking about people behind their back. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

See how uncertain I am about moves? I had no idea that I had ever asked for a move to be reversed. When? Where?

Re: that other user, thanx but no sweat - that person appears frequently and untraceably from a multitude of IP's and puts all kinds of fantasies in all over but never with any reliable sources. His/her latest plan of attack - of many - is to accuse others of not sourcing. I have just given a source there in response to your suggestion for and removed the unsourced stuff he/she put in again. Beware! His/her whining can go on for decimeters and decimeters of screen space if he/she doesn't get his/her fantasy stuff in. And he/she copies those decimeters of his/hers and puts them in all over. Some of that graces my talk page above on sw.WP. In this case, I'd have no qualms about discussing someone with you or anyone else, because it is impossible to discuss directly with that person without getting into a sticky mess. A block of all those IP's may become necessary in due course. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say that you had requested for a move to be reversed. You asked how to do it and I said that it's done just like requesting a move. You have requested moves, eg. Inge I of Sweden. Now, if somebody moved Queen Silvia of Sweden to Silvia Sommerlath and you didn't like it, you would request for the move to be reversed the same way you requested moving Inge I of Sweden. I'm sorry if I'm not clear enough. Surtsicna (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Clear now, thanx! Going for an early dinner. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you're on top of all this now, but in a case where everyone involved with an article agrees, and you don't expect any controversy, you should be bold and make the move yourself. By default, a redirect will be left behind pointing to the new name, which will take care of any links to the old name. Thparkth (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Project: Rename articles of Swedish royals

This is a reminder to myself to try to fit this work in sometime soon.

{{help}} Some of the articles about the kings/queens regnant, the queens consort, the princes and princesses of Sweden could be moved/renamed for consistent format in the overall lists (see category links above).

I have a few simple, constructive ideas for such formats and would like to get consensus on them, so I will have something to go by. Have come to realize that my own ideas will not all be able to be implemented at this time, since consensus and adopted policy already seem to be firmly against some of them. Perhaps some sort of compromise on format can be achieved?

Should I start an RFC to get comments on these specific new ideas, which I then will list there; or should I list them here; or on the Swedish monarchy talk page; or on the main category talk page - or how else could I try to get consensus to start the project soon, in a way that will not be too controversial and run into lots of objections? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd start the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles) actually - after reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). And then invite anyone and everyone that might be interested/able to comment - a short note pointing to the section you've started on that talk page - on the talk pages of articles, and of project groups - and I'd try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden, because that's likely to be more active. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I think you may have meant Wikipedia talk:Article titles and Wikipedia:Article titles. There seem to be almost endless arguments there about royalty - I am hoping that the comparatively simple project of fixing these article titles can be solved without having to go through all that. Perhaps I am naive to think so? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) because it seems that your proposal will not concern only Sweden-related articles. The titles of articles about Swedish royals should not be formatted differently than titles of articles about (for example) Danish royals. It would not only create some very inconvenient situations (such as Ingrid of Sweden and Louise of Sweden), but unneccessary inconsistency would be created. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though I assure you it is my intention only to address the Swedish royals with this project and leave all the others for others (with expertise on those people) to fix. Other than that, see my reply above, please! I thought if I could show my suggestions somewhere, they might be found totally uncontroversial. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with Surtsicna's advice, and begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. That way you'll get more general feedback than you would on the Swedish monarchy talk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should change some of the names of Swedish royalty to fit more in line with Danish royalty. I tried changing some of the titles for the Swedish princesses, but I didn't tamper with some because there was already existing redirect by that name. But what are you guys even trying to change? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

When I did a complete overhaul of the 4 categories (linked above) awhile ago and saw to it that all articles were included, I discovered that some article titles have Prince (etc.) in them while others do not, the queens consort are called Queen of Sweden in a few cases, in most not, and their confirmed maiden names are usually (correctly as I have come to understand) used, but not always, legitimate English exonyms are used in most cases, but not all, etc. Once I get consensus from y'all about where to post my suggested consistency formats, this will become clearer. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the Danes, some of whom are involved here, too. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, the thing is that you can't change the format of the titles of Swedish royalty-related articles without changing the format of titles of all the other European royalty-related articles. I doubt anyone would agree with having articles about two European sovereigns titled Carl XVI Gustaf, King of Sweden and Albert II of Belgium at the same time. People wouldn't want to have articles about Queen Victoria of Sweden and Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom titled Victoria of Baden, Queen of Sweden and Alexandra of Denmark at the same time. You get what I mean. That's why you need to start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Surtsicna! Please don't assume anything based on past discussions and go on here as if you know what I am planning to suggest! I invited you to comment constructively. You have given your opinion once here, that will suffice. Now let others have their say. I will wait for a few days and then post my suggested formats where consensus thinks I should put them. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing! Please don't invite me anymore if you are going to respond to my comments in such manner, as if I attacked you. You did not specify that each editor should comment only once and I did not deserve your shutting me up. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Surtsicna

No one who sticks to the topic of what I have asked them to comment on, on my talk page, deserves to be shut up. Anyone who misuses the invitation and starts irrelevant insinuations, presumptions and unnecessary arguments here does. And will be. Such behavior is not welcome here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note: I have clearly explained (I think?) that this section is for advice to me about where to start a discussion in the matter of renaming some articles. It is not necessary that that discussion takes place here, and not appreciated either, if so. Thank you for your kind consideration! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have to agree about starting a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). You can make any suggestions you'd like there and let the discussion lead the way. Personally, I don't have a particular view on this, so I apologize for seeming to be wishy-washy regarding this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! No apology needed. You answered my question. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest inviting Wikipedians who write on Danish royalty to join this discussion? And those write on Swedish and Danish Wikipedia as well? — Robert Greer (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You first suggestion is excellent, thank you! Though I'm not sure how to find more of them than I have already invited (as noted above). You second suggestion renders me quite a bit of ambivalence. In general those writers are not (at) all qualified to judge English texts or article names, in my experience. After cleaning up many hundreds, even thousands, of things by most of them over the years, I would say they generally need more help than they are qualified to give here at en.WP. There are a few exceptions of course (I've invited 2), but I haven't seen many, even among those who have p/(b)o(a)sted "native-level English" on their user pages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a valid criticism. There is a tendency in some quarters to over-estimate one's command of English as a second languange, but in this very limited context — styling of royal names — it should not be a problem. As to editors of Danish articles, have you looked at WikiProject Denmark? — Robert Greer (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re

Thank you. Yes, it is beautiful, is it not? I also find it so. --Aciram (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re minor edits and Greta Garbo

You object applying Minor Edit to the transforming of "...he was impressed by the it was the gentleness and..." to "...he was impressed by the gentleness and..." on the page for Greta Garbo. Number one on the list of grounds for use of Minor Edit (Help:Minor edit) is "Spelling and grammatical corrections". English does not permit application of an article ("the") to a pronoun ("it"). This was a grammatical correction, with no change to semantic content, so Minor Edit was appropriate.

Whether to use Minor Edit or not is determined by the purpose and effect of the edit, not its length, although of course most minor edits (and hence most Minor Edits) are short. -- Igodard (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a certain value, in my opinion, in advising others with watchlists even of grammatical errors or orphan phrases (such as this may be) that have been left in articles and are corrected through multi-word edits. In my opinion, such changes should not be designated as minor. Certain editors never or rarely look at changes marked as m on their watchlists and must rely on us not to use minor for changes of this kind. You are just as welcome to your opinion as I assume you respect mine. Perhaps it is I who am wrong, and I should start checking even m edits more carefully to see if any multi-word improvments and/or corrections have taken place. I was rather severely scolded about this some time ago, and I may be too sensitive about it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Swedish royal names: Gustaf/Gustav, Christina/Kristina etc

I saw you've been doing some work and discussion on the names of Swedish kings, princes, princesses and queens and what spelling to use in English. Not sure if you know, but there's an old practice, followed consistently in Sweden that final f in a kingly/princely Gustaf is changed to v after the bearer has died. So King Gustaf V, Gustaf II Adolf in contemporary sources but Gustav in historical writing after their death, including modern tombstones and statues. I'm not sure when this practice was laid down but it's been around at least since the late 19th century. It barely affects pronounciation: final -f in Gustaf is pronounced v, sometimes with a very slight fricativization ("shade of an f") but it was and is rather indistinguishable. I commented on it at [[11]] - the section at the bottom called "Gustav & Gustaf (again). The same with Karl/Carl and Kristina(Christina.

The spelling on WP seems to be a bit variable: I notice Gustaf V but Gustav I of Sweden with redirects on Gustav Vasa and Gustaf vasa - both of those seem to have been headlined with an eye to the Swedish articles. I would prefer Gustav V but since it's the same on WPSw it's all right. In Sweden the most common way by far to refer to Gustav I is as Gustav Vasa: people will lift their eyebrows high if you say in everyday talk that Gustav I is the man who fought Nils Dacke. Queen Christina wrote her own name as Christina - influenced by French - but most books in Swedish use "Kristina". Strausszek (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit of an expert on all this, but thank you anyway!

Yes, Gustaf has traditionally been changed to Gustav after the death of each king by that name, just as Carl has been changed to Karl. The Swedes called it normalization and the same was used to record the legal names of regular residents in church ledgers, whether they liked it (or even knew of it) or not. The last stubborn remnants of this, of sorts, have been the phone books of the Swedish government's phone company, where Ericson, Ericsson, Erikson, Eriksson, Erichson and Erikzon, for example, were all bunched together in one single secton, alphabetized as Eriksson - making it nearly impossible to find some people!

Since 1901, however, all Swedes have had legal names with non-variable legal spellings. That is why kings Gustaf V, Gustaf VI Adolf and Carl XVI Gustaf always should be spelled that way, as should the current king's father. Gustav, on the other hand, is considered normal English spelling, whereas Gustaf is not. But it is just no longer considered appropriate for others - in any language - to change the legal registered spellings of the names of 20th and 21st century people. Thus, too, the current king is Carl Gustaf, not Charles Gustavus and his queen is Silvia not Sylvia.

I'm sorry, you are wrong about the modern tomb stones. Only legal spellings are given there.

I do not fully agree with you about Gustav I versus Gustav Vasa. Have heard Gustav I used many times in Swedish, usually by scholars or other well educated people. After all, the king himself never used Vasa - and of course the numeral didn't come into use until the next Gustav ascended.

Queen Christina was influenced by Latin, not French (which has that name as Christine). There too, Kristina is a normalization, as is Katarina for Catharina. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Better news

[[File:Mae West LAT.jpg]] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Irony

"Please do not raise your voice at me by using capital letters!" Happy to make the change to italics but... the usage of the "!" in this situation seems ironic. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In English punctuation and grammar it is not correct not to use an exclamation point at the end of a sentence which begins with the word please. In WP policy the use of all capitals for a whole word is taken as if you are raising your voice On those few occasions when I do that I always add (please pardon me for raising my voice!) - again using the exclamation point correctly - or such right after. Same to you. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel quite generous, you might provide a source for the "not correct not to use an exclamation point at the end of sentence which begins with the word please" thing. I do understand I am asking for an unearned favor, but in many, many years of exposure to American English, I have never heard of such a rule.- Sinneed 03:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You and your friend Anders are so headstrong about being great at English that I must abstain from debating the English language with the two of you any further. Please respect that! We will never arrive at anything that will please either of us on that subject. It is on that talk page in writing that I hope we will be helped by people with English as a main language. So why don't you just stop now? I'm not going to reply anymore anyway to either of you re: English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet interacted with Anders, so identifying him/her as my friend is probably overly familiar. Your posting at 3O drew me to the article, as I came to try to find out why someone would attempt to name an article about a person "a Swedish epithet". That turned out not to be the case.- Sinneed 12:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are not knowledgeable enough to know that Årsäll is a Swedish epithet - why go on and on? I won't be replying anymore. Please stay off my talk page! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

"You are butting in where you are not wanted and sabotaging my 3O request." is not appropriate. Unless subject to an article ban, any unblocked editor is welcome to edit any unprotected article.- Sinneed 02:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

An appropriate guideline is that there is no wp:ownership of articles, one of the wp:pillars of wikipedia.- Sinneed 02:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to quote guidelines where they are not applicable. You know very well I meant you are butting in on the talk page there and intentionally sabotaging the 3O process. That is called being disruptive, in English. My comment on that has nothing whatsoever to do with actually editing the article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The quoted guidelines are quite applicable. Anyone is welcome to edit any article talk pages in the encyclopedia. Your behaviour at the article talk page, at the 3O page in the slanted presentation of the issue, is not acceptable. It seems motivated by genuine concern, but it is not appropriate.- Sinneed 12:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please rest assured that I am not "butting in", am not "sabotaging", and that these warnings and the comments on the article talk page are not disruptive. Please remember to wp:assume good faith.- Sinneed 12:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to stay away from here. Now, I wish you would do the same there, so there still might be a chance of some 3O assistance. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. As I stated, I accept your invitation to reply to you here. This is another warning for wp:own, and another for wp:civil. Focus on the content, not on the posters. Comments about me, I will reply to here.- Sinneed 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am warning you one last time: stay off my talk page! Please respect that! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Write down

In the future, before you try to mock someone for poor English, I suggest that you consult a dictionary first.

Andejons (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was poor English I said it was an odd choice of words your friend used you used. It is, very odd, suspected Swenglish (like you so often write) or else just childish. Confusing in a context where appropriate English is being discussed. But your English isn't good enough - Mr Near-native level - to distinguish between these factors.

You are not welcome on my talk page, so stay off it please! Especially when you are running the errands of someone else, a friend of yours who is only trying to prevent a neutral 3O volunteer from helping. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch·comms 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Undoing edits

You undid one of my edits the at Carl Linnaeus article stating it was NPOV. Perhaps a more mature thing to do would be to actually asked what I meant with the edit before you undid (or at least leaving a note on my talk page)? Caution should be taken when undoing a registered user's edit. There is nothing un-neutral with my edit. I simply "cleaned up" some redundant images. First of all, galleries are not very popular at the FACs or GANs, which is where I aim to take this article. Also none of the images are very notable, neither are they referencing to the text in any way. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You use of the word "mature" is insulting. (Please do not come to this page to insult me!)

Articles should preferably be discussed on their talk pages.

My sincere apologies, anyway, for offending you! You seemed to have given your point of view (WP:POV) about two images. I did not find that point of view of yours quite neutral. When I write "clean up" (I have done a lot of that myself for years) I usually mean that something was not appropriate. Dirt isn't. To clean something up, literally, is to remove dirt, though we often use the term just a dab less literally, of course. I see nothing inappropriate about those images in the context they appear. Thats my POV, which honestly opposes yours. They are relevant and interesting, and I didn't know they had to be notable in themselves.

The college is mentioned, though someone recently removed it from that image caption. I'll put it back. Fruit, of course, is relevant, and I find that image extraordinarily entertaining.

Why not remove the whole gallery, if galleries are frowned upon (I didn't know that either)?

Can we agree to disagree like gentlemen without lecturing each other, questioning each other's maturity and taking offense? I am sorry. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My intent was not to insult you, insulting serves no purpose. I simply wanted to state very clearly that I do not think one should undo another editors edit so hastily (unless they are vandals). First of all one should try discuss it (although I know there are many editors/people who do not want to discuss). Undoing without discussing is like you treat me like I was a vandal, that is why I take offence.

Anyway, apology accepted. Let's continue the discussion at the talk page. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting criticism on a talk page

{{help}} I need a policy clarification, please! Very confused today about something I thought was not allowed. Something I would never dare do, though it would make my WP life much more comfortable.

Is this kind of thing allowed? Has now been done twice by that editor and I do not want to go to war on that page about it.

In other words, whenever I am criticized on a talk page and my edit motives are mudslung at, can I too just delete those entries? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If they are talking about the article's subject, it is not allowed. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. But you shouldn't remove such comments, just remind them instead. If they are criticising your edits, I wouldn't delete the comments - that wouldn't be very nice not matter what the policies say. I would just reply back with why you made the particular edits - remember WP:BOLD :) Chevymontecarlo 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanx! In the linked case above, two comments of mine that go to the motives of an opposing editor have been deleted by him twice. His motives are important in trying to understand his stand on the article's subject and the extensive extraordinary information that he has included and wants kept in that biography, a porno drawing and lots of text. What does one do about such repeated deletions, his own of entries about his motives re: the article? I've never done anything like that and never would, but seeing him get away with it makes me wonder why not. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure :( sorry. If you leave the help tag someone else might be able to help you - sorry again :( Chevymontecarlo 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I can shed some light on the subject. The first rule of talk pages is they are there to improve the article. This is a rather broad definition when you think about it. Content disputes may occasionally require specific comments regarding editor motives, but this is a gray area. My general rule of thumb is I do not delete comments directed at me. The only content I delete from talk pages is my own mistaken edits or blatant vandalism. Let a third party look it over and make a delete decision. On that note, do not ask another editor to look it over, as this can be considered meatpuppetry (recruiting other editors to shore up a particular point of view).

In short, I would just ignore the other editor's behavior. Do your own personal best to assume good faith and work to improve articles. If another editor chooses to engage in shady behavior, eventually they'll squawk loud enough to gain the attention of an administrator. N419BH 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yup. Generally, on article talk pages, talk about the subject shouldn't be removed, but talk about editors may be.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• We're trying to give this to all editors who have a general experience level, but the rollout by hand is making it a slow process. So that you understand the full process, I'll flag you as well. (This flag is truly minor, at least as long as flagged revisions is in the 2-month trial phase.) Courcelles (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll see if I can figure out how to put that to some constructive use. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Boleslaw of Sweden (disambiguation) and Birger of Sweden (disambiguation)

Hello, just to let you know that these have been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig as it has only one valid entry. If the other Boleslaw gets an article, then a hatnote at the primary page is probably the best way forward, see MOS:DAB, Disambiguation pages with only two entries. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Louise of Sweden (disambiguation)

Hi! Now that you've created the Louise of Sweden (disambiguation) disambig, could you help clean up the links that point to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 12:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can such a thing be done by a bot? I do not know how to find the links. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let me say this is entirely optional to you. I only place these messages because many people are unaware it's a task that needs doing. That being said, you have several options. The list of links to fix is here. I would recommend getting navigation popups. Go to "my preferences" in the upper right hand corner and click "Gadgets", check the box to enable Navigation popups, then click save. Follow the instructions on the page to bypass your browser's cache. Then go to your user javascript file and add this line

popupFixDabs=true;

Save and reload the cache again. Then, click a page in the list I gave you, find and hover over the Louise of Sweden (disambiguation) link (it'll probably be piped) and you'll get a small preview of the dab, and green links at the bottom of the preview to use to fix the link. Let me know if you have any questions! --JaGa^talk 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this helpful into! I have solved the problem this time, however, by reversing my work of yesterday and creating a brand new clean disambig from the Swedish name version - Lovisa of Sweden (disambiguation). SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant criticism

I am truly grateful for your comment. I am sure you have seen the "message full of hatred" I had removed. A comment such as his would've hit me even more. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You and I have had a number of more or less unpleasant encounters in all the pleasant work here - a few of them with each other - but that particular user is the worst nightmare I have had by far. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Kuiper has now stalked me here to try to pick another fight with me, two and a half months later, by commenting on this long deleted text, which never concerned him in the first place. He is whom I meant above, and was commenting on on Surtsicna's page (where Surtsicna felt another editor had been hateful), no matter how this has been misconstrued. The nightmare goes on and on and on and on. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll send you an e-mail. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Very well put. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

86ed

I completely agree, but DKqwerty is not willing to be civil, and myself and many others have worked hard to establish validity to this article. And, he just comes in and wipes out 6 month of research in one swing. It appears that he is a self proclaimed WikiBot, and I do not know protocol in this situation. If you have a better solution to stop the madness. Please help.

Replied there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Folke Bernadotte

Now for a Bernadotte of Wisborg who is undoubtedly notable, Count Folke Bernadotte. The biography was naturally very interesting but then I hit Folke Bernadotte#Marriage and descendants; it's even more of a mess than Count Lennart's was because it folds in a mini-history of Folke Bernadotte's in-laws, the Manville family (of the Johns-Manville corporation in the U.S.) Can you parse out what's going on? If I were to go through the hassle of converting it to a table, much more would be clear, but what's really needed is a companion ahnentafel for the Manvilles, comparable to pairing Prince Albert's ancestry with Queen Victoria's. I've never composed an ahnentafel, and genealogy is not one of my hobbies (although heraldry used to be); do you want to give it a try, or know someone who does? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I see what happened, the whole section was created by a problem user:G.-M. Cupertino just before he was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia in May 2010 (he'd just come out of a one-year block last January); here's the diff (May 2010) ; he added some useful information but in a pretty confused way. There's more to editing Wikipedia than just copying and pasting from the New York Times archive. ¶ More checking confirmed a vague guess that Cupertino might have done the same thing at Lennart Bernadotte, and indeed he did, a few months before his year-long block in January 2009. See: 2nd diff (Oct. 2008) . Which leads to the troubling question; how many other articles about Swedish royals and ex-royals (or for that matter members of other royal families) did he edit in this way? Is this going to be a major project for the Sweden, Royalty & nobility or Genealogy Wikiprojects? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is major project and there are many. Thanx for any tip-off! Sorry I cannot give the organized and thorough time and attention to all these problems that I'd like to. I pick off a little here, a little there, as I come across it. Will have a quick look at Folke now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Styrbjörn

Since we no longer seem to be debating the article, I'm posting this message here. I'm well aware that you most likely will try to claim that I have no right to do so, so if you'd like to, you're welcome to continue the discussion on my talk page.

Anyway, I agree: it's horrible how people can use sarcasm and post messages for no other reason than trying to belittle others. But maybe you would care to answer how exactly "characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound" is a reasonable translation of "orolig, våldsam och stridslysten"? I assure you that I'm very anxious to know it.

Andejons (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No sarcasm, no belittling involved at all in those links. Just factual statements. I won't be talking to you at all anymore until you change your false ad about your English here and begin to show some appreciation of the fact that those of us who do not write some kind of a Swenglish rotvälska here do a lot of work trying to clean up after all you Swedes who do. You should be a little grateful for that and not pick fights about it. I could treat you much worse than trying to correct your language. We all need to see our own limitations. I have many. Yours here is mainly your English - and your headstrong sarcasm and belligerence makes it all much worse. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I'm confused about the English again. You're sure it would be impossible for native speakers to find anything that could be interpreted as an attempt to be "sharp, bitter, or cutting" about "even to Swedes reading English"?

And I see that you still have not answered my question. I'm sure you've must have forgotten about it. Would you be so kind as to take the time to do so in your next reply, to show exactly how mistaken I was when I removed that sentence from the article, so that I can make a proper apology for it?

Andejons (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You removed a whole sentence where all we needed to do was change one word or the wording, which we then did when we found wording that is clear even to Swedes reading English. If you really think everything is as clear to you on English WP as it is to those of us whose first language is English, then that proves my point - you are stubborn, headstrong and over-confident when it comes to English, while you often show us how bad your Swenglish is here. Only those of us that know Swedish very well can identify it as Swenglish and help you fix it. Everybody else just wonders what you might mean. Now, I tried again here to be extra nice to you by replying sincerely, rather than ignoring you like I said I would (and had promised myself) above). I will not reply to anything you write after this until you update your user page template. You are not at a "near native level" in English. That's final. Straightforwardly and cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, but surely someone with an English as terrible as mine shouldn't be allowed to write anything in the articles! We can't have the readers wondering what it might have been that I meant! Writing must surely be left to the true experts, with us poor stupid Swedes merely being allowed to ask questions when we are in over our heads. But since you said you won't be responding to me, I guess I should leave you alone now. Best of luck with the wording!

Andejons (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Perspeculum's talk page.
Message added 05:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

debate climate

Serge, I am sorry I have upset you. I have been having a hard time assuming good faith with you given that, earlier in the discussion, you admitted you were consciously bullshitting. Once someone admits to that, it is hard not to see their other contributions in that light. In this case I was wrong to do so, and I apologize. I particularly apologize for accusing you of dishonesty with regards to your claims about Burke's and Debrett's. I continue to disagree with your interpretation of what their omission of surnames for royalty means, and I think you are making unwarranted inferences that do not stand up very strongly as evidence, but you obviously were not being dishonest, and I should not have suggested that you were. Our discussion at Marie Clotilde has gotten pretty far afield from any disagreement about the article, and it is probably a good idea to back away. john k (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:National_costume#National_costume_vs_folk_costume

You may be interested in the question I pose there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanx. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dacia Traina

Please reinstate Dacia Traina at Dacia (disambiguation). I see no reason to remove something that some people will be looking for there. Thx SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's there as Roman Dacia. Do you feel the description is not enough, and that Dacia Traina and Dacia Felix should be mentioned as well? You are probably correct. You may be WP:bold and amend the description yourself - you needn't ask my permission, we are all equal volunteers on this educational charity project. SilkTork *^YES! 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole objective of an alphabetical disambiguation page would be to help readers find things. You have now made that next to impossible, as hardly anyone is going to bother to try to find a geographical name in all that text unless that name is listed on tha page alphabetically. I will give you some time to think about that and fix so it works, before I start a discussion there and ask for a 3rd opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I get the sense that you are upset and frustrated. I apologise for being responsible for your frustration, though I don't quite understand why you feel you need to come to me to ask for my agreement for making a trivial, non-controversial edit; nor why you feel you need to make an ultimation that I think about my edit and "fix it" or you'll ask somebody else's opinion. You can make the edit. Somebody else can then change it. I can then change it. So it goes on. The intention all the time is to build on what the previous person has done and improve things. Sometimes we get it wrong, and what we thought was an improvement is not. Fine. A quiet amendment is better than a dramatic and provocative message on somebody's talkpage. This is a collaborative project - we need to get along, and it helps if we are polite and civil with each other, are tolerant and respectful, and are also confident enough to make small edits. I change and improve my own edits all the time. I trust you to do the same for me. And I trust that when I do the same to your edits you will take the amendment in the right spirit and either build on it, or further amend it in our ongoing quest to get things right. Go forth and build the encyclopedia! SilkTork *^YES! 21:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SergeWoodzing. Thank you. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 10:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop inventing names

I have now tagged Carl of Vermillandia as a possible hoax. Please stop inventing names. Most importantly: do not invent names of living persons. With your redirects, phoney facebook pages have been created, like http://www.facebook.com/pages/Carl-Philip-Duke-of-Vermillandia/153752801302994 Sincerely, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not welcome here, as you know. The fact that you are ignoring that just goes to show how your main objective is to harrass me. Plus the fact that you should have seen that I have made good faith entries in these matters where I am going to start to look for the sources once offices open tomorrow where I can get expert help (which you are not). You should also have seen how often you have been wrong when you attacked me about these things with your sarcastic and uncivil comments. I will probably find ondependent sources for all those province names, like I did for the Smallands, Eyland and Vermelandia that you attacked me about. If you want to complain about my work do it to administrators who then can look into it and ask me about it. But I repeat STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Carl of Vermillandia for deletion

The article Carl of Vermillandia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Fences&Windows 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Basic opinion on redirects and disambiguations

My basic ideas and opinions on this can now be found in the text of my user page as added here . SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carl Philip of Vermillandia

The article Carl Philip of Vermillandia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

madeup title of a living person, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Kuiper: You are NOT WELCOME on my talk page for any reason whatsoever. You have been told this before. Please respect that and do not use deletion requests or anything else as an excuse to bother me here. I want to have no contact with you of any kind. This is the last time I am admonishing you to STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE!. I now expect you to do so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice of redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

• The user who posted this is now using unnecessary (frivolous) deletion requests to show me that he does not respect my repeated requests that he stay off my talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Carl Philip of Vermillandia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carl Philip of Vermillandia. Since you had some involvement with the Carl Philip of Vermillandia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• This user is now using unnecessary (frivolous) deletion requests to show me that he does not respect my repeated requests that he stay off my talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

With regards to your response to comments by Pieter Kuiper on your talk page, as you will be aware, it is required as part of various processes such as AfD, that certain users are notified. If you do not wish Pieter Kuiper to contact you on your talk page in any circumstances as seem to be suggested, can you confirm that you accept that you are then responsible for making yourself aware of any issues which may relate to page you have been involved with? If so, then I can highlight this to Pieter and advise him that any further messages here may be considered harassment and he risks being blocked. Adambro (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! What do you think would be safe? Since I can't trust him, based on years of persecution of myself and others, can I be sure that he wouldn't be able to use that against me to cause serious trouble? Should my watchlist be enough? Or can he get around that somehow and take advantage of the fact that he doesn’t have to notify me? What if he reported me for some inventive reason to administrators on some page that I do not watch or with something that I do not find? I'm actually scared of him, as you might be able to tell. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The issues you highlight is why I wanted to confirm you really didn't want Pieter Kuiper to contact you in any circumstances as you seem to have implied. Would it not be more sensible therefore to tolerate notification from Pieter Kuiper just to make sure that you are aware of what is going on? It would seem preferable, if Pieter Kuiper is going to, for example, nominate an article you've written for deletion, that he notifies you rather than does it anyway and doesn't notify you and then for whatever reason, you don't learn about it and can't respond. I'd suggest that, whilst Pieter Kuiper nominating articles that you are involved with for deletion (or whatever) may be part of a campaign of harassment, you shouldn't consider him notifying you about it as harassment because it is often going to be useful to you that he has done so. Adambro (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If he was considerate at all, or someone asked/told him to, he could report problems with my work to someone else neutral who could contact me, but his main objective, believe me, is to continue to harass me. I am hoping he will leave me and my work alone. Otherwise I won't want to go on anyway. I'm that fed up. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Harald III move 2009

Hi Serge, I performed a history merge on that article in 2009. Graham87 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Graham! Remember why you chose that article name? Any reaction to that name being called "idiosyncratic" now, or to my being called a "diva" for not understanding why it wouldn't be correct to link to it? I'm still dumbfounded. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I chose to move it to that title simply because it contained all the early history that I had to merge. Keep in mind that I moved the page back to its original name after I had done the history merge. I know absolutely nothing about the subject, so I can't really comment on you being called a "diva" for linking to the page's old name, except to say that in general it is harsh language. Graham87 01:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I linked to the article's current name Harald III of Norway, not to any old name of it. As far as I can see it's the current name - now called "idiosyncratic" - that I am being ridiculed for linking to, and it is then claimed that that name for the article was established when you did that moving on Nov 1 2009, which the edit history seems to show also. That's why I wrote to you, to see if I could find out anything that might explain the treatment I'm getting. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Well, I only moved "Harald III of Norway" to "Harold Hardrada", did the history merge, then moved the page back to the original "Harold III of Norway" title. I have absolutely no opinion on the article's title. Graham87 14:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got the full picture now as far as you are concerned. Thank you for letting me grill you a bit about that and particularly for replying so considerately. Made me feel better. I think you did the right thing 100%. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That was not my intention

If you felt ridiculed then I apologise. My only intention was to bring a little light hearted humour to the conversation. John Hendo (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Best ever

These are the best two replies I have ever had to a question I raised at Wikipedia about a matter that is very important to me. I am recording them here for my own reference (SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

• Use of blatant Swenglish is definitely a concern; I encounter it fairly frequently as well. There are two issues involved: first, that many Swedes (not all, but many) have an inflated sense of their own ability to speak or write perfect English, because most Swedes have sufficient English to communicate with English-speakers - which obviously doesn't imply a perfect grasp of the language. Second, Swedish and English are sufficiently closely related to fool speakers of one language into thinking that the other language is pretty much the same, only with different words. That is not at all the case, because there are many important differences in sentence structure and other grammatical features, as well as a lot of false friends in the vocabularies of the two languages. (Btw, the reason I feel reasonably competent to comment on this is that I am a native speaker of Swedish, and I teach English grammar at university level in Sweden. I don't claim native competence in English, but I do consider my English to be sufficient for most purposes in Wikipedia.) Competence in English is a sore point with many Swedes, though, so there is unfortunately real potential for making people upset. While I'm not particularly good at handling conflicts (and am not an administrator), I could try helping out, because I do have some experience in explaining English grammar to Swedes. No guarantees that it will work, mind. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Along those lines, I can say it's true, non-native speakers of any language can easily misunderstand their successes with informal or verbal conversation as meaning they can write that language at a native level, or even speak it at levels needed in, say, meaningful business or technical conversations. Syntax, cognates, even idiom often don't quite make the jump between two given languages, so even if one has thousands of vocabulary words at their beck and call, along with knowing how to conjugate lots of verbs, the outcome can still be fraught with glitches, gaps and wrong meanings which thoroughly thwart understanding and flow. Even native speakers must at least be aware of their audience and may need or want to shift their usage to get whatever outcome they want from other native speakers. Long tale put too short, understanding is easier than rendering and there are reasons why skilled translators into a given language are almost always native speakers of that language. Vladimir Nabokov was very Russian, but he could write such slick English because he grew up speaking it at home, from babyhood, along with Russian and French. Our brains are hard-wired, so to speak, for language, but a language has to be soaked up at an early age. There's a cut-off age for by far most folks, I've forgotten what it is, say seven or eight at the latest, after which, if one isn't already fluently speaking a language, one will more or less never speak that language at what most would take as a native level. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in...

this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

RE:Very confused about your comments

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Obsidian Soul's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep re notability

Added here by myself (SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) for future reference:

Serge, I think that you may be missing the point about how WP determines "includability." It's not based on subjective value, as your use of "encyclopedically relevant" would suggest. With a commercial, typically paper encyclopedia they have a team of professional editors, senior editors, and publishers to decide what to include and omit, with someone having the power to make an ultimate and final decision on that question. Because of the wiki-ideal of WP we cannot do that (even the Arbitration Committee has no power to decide content matters and while the Foundation does have that power, they only exercise it when legal concerns require them to do so). On the other hand, the community has recognized that we must remain true to our encyclopedic goal, so we can't just let anything and everything in. If it was left up to the community to decide about each individual article on nothing more than an "I like it" or "I don't like it" basis, on the other hand, the drama factor and disruption would be excessive, so instead we use verifiability as the base standard to determine inclusion or exclusion. (Notability is merely an explanation, interpretation, and expansion of verifiability; in effect verifiability is the principle, notability is the application of that principle.) At the end of the day, and with a few exceptions (BLP, copyright, vandalism, legal threats, etc.), inclusion or exclusion is determined by whether the subject matter of an article can be supported by multiple reliable sources (not is supported, but can be supported; the standard is verifiability not verified). If it can be, then subject to the aforementioned exceptions it can be included here; if it cannot, then it must be omitted. One interesting place these principles combine is in the issue of spam and some folks are surprised to learn that an entirely-promotional article cannot be deleted merely because it is promotional if it is reliably sourced. The only remedy for the spaminess of such an article is to rewrite it to remove the promotional tone and material. SoWhy is absolutely right that the proper way to get community judgment on whether or not an article should or should not be included is to take it to articles for deletion. While it is theoretically incumbent upon the nominator to make at least some effort to see if an article is verifiable before nominating it at AFD, I've never seen an editor get in trouble for not doing so, at least not unless he or she is repeatedly that cavalier. As for how notability is applied at AFD, you might be interested in this recent Village Pump discussion. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Mr. Stradivarius's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I also left a message at Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your appreciation. Garn Svend (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years

Hi! I moved your talk page message to Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years - it seemed more relevant there, and other editors will get the chance to look at it. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Mr. Stradivarius's talk page.
Message added 22:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your opinion?

I would like your opinion on this ongoing matter.. User_talk:Cush#Laramie.2C_Wyoming. If other editors want to chime in, I'm all ears. I am growing tired of trying to state my case with Cush. Any help would be much appreciated. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I can there, I think. Seems no one agrees with him of the 3-4 of us that have reacted so far. I'm keeping an eye on the article so the edit war doesn't flare up again. We have to assume that that kind of sweeping bigotry (for lack of a better word) will not hold up, especially without any sources showing Laramie as internationally infamous for that murder. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Svein, King of Norway

You seem to be interested in Scandinavian history. You might be interested in Talk:Svein, King of Norway.

Thank you sincerely, Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, for this considerate invitation. I'm so glad to see you aren't still upset with me for wishing you'd change your user name to SpyingForQueenLiz (both I and II) or something equally attractive. Will do my best there, but I might have to be a bit unconventional in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't hold grudges.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to your email

Hello, SergeWoodzing. I'm replying to your email regarding the template on the Jacob Truedson Demitz page and apologize for the delay. It's been some time since I worked on that article, so I'm not sure what's been done since then. According to the page history User:Thumperward added the template on June 17, 2011. Perhaps they can provide the details. Best regards, momoricks 20:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! What, if anything, do you see with your experience that looks untidy about the article's refences? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely!

Hi, I'm Ornithikos (sort of) and I thought I should reply here to your post that replied to mine on the Hippie talk page, so the page won't become an individual conversation. I assume you detect that I too am an aging hippie, an odd term since those who now wear it with honor never actually called called themselves hippies. The despair that I felt when the movement seemed to have vanished (or worse) was boundless, and discovering the larger historical perspective helped me enormously.

I expressed a more upbeat view than you in an effort to forestall any migration of the article to imply that, hordes of purported hippies being seen no longer, the underlying transcendental ideals are defunct. The Hippie article is, and hopefully will remain, a fairly accurate view of what really occurred and what it felt like. It is indeed an insider's viewpoint, as one comment charges, but how else could it be accurate at all? We cannot learn of Carthage from the Romans! Ornithikos (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to hear from you. I loved being called at "hippie type" already then. And oh, how I miss my hair!

All we need is Love. That will never be a worn-out cliché to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Louise Mountbatten proposals

Would you check out my two proposals at Talk:Louise Mountbatten? I assumed you were in a different time zone and perhaps not still around, but it appears you are.--SPhilbrickT 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Both excellent, but that user does not care and will continue to expect us to be the clean-up crew. I can have no other balanced opinion based on quite a bit of experience with that user. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the two issues separate. Would you be so kind as to post something at the talk page, addressing only the proposed edits? I got my hand slapped once for making a change without checking in first, so I'd like something on the talk page. --SPhilbrickT 02:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Characterizations in edit summaries

Please avoid using disparaging terms in edit summaries. I'm specifically talking about comments like this.[12] In this case "two parapgraphs of clean-up" would have been just as informative. The rest won't make anyone more proficient in English and it mere reflects poorly on you per WP:Civility.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The language there was atrocious and sloppy. You'd know that if your English was at a native, not (as you assert) near-nartive level. There can be a big difference.

Your advice is of no interest to me here and is unwanted.

I am unavailable to you for futher attempted reprimands.

Please stay off my talk page! I'm asking you nicely. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Truedson Demitz

Re your question re Jacob Truedson Demitz I have a guess, but not sure if I'm right, so I asked here. I'll try to monitor the answer, but I hope you will watch too. No matter what the answer, I'll offer to help, if the next steps aren't obvious to you.--SPhilbrickT 12:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have already asked here and have taken care of a few of those concerns since then, but I don't know if some of the references should be removed and tags added in the corresponding text (if there are serious problems?) and I don't understand if the newpaper articles should or should not be quoted, etc. Like you, I don't seem to understand the reason for the template. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I do note, prompted by reading the other exchange, that footnote 15 has a wikilink, and a link to a commons picture. The first is wrong, one cannot use Wikipedia articles as sources, the second makes no sense to me, why have an image in a footnote. Maybe I'm missing the point (which, as an aside, may be the point), but it shouldn't be there. Help me understand what is intended by footnote 15 and I can help you fix it.--SPhilbrickT 12:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The linked college is only the publisher of the cited publication; the image is of a diploma of sorts that additionally confirms the memberhip, as per advice given a previous editor on how to reference awards. I'm trying to find that advice. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Found it: see here under the 3rd "done" from the top of the section! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I added additional comments at the talk page.--SPhilbrickT 12:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've tried to address what you've asked about so far. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

You expressed lack of knowledge of citation templates. First, they aren't hard, but if you do them by hand, they are painful. I wouldn't consider doing them by hand.

Can we check to see if you have the automated option?

On any page, click on the edit button. You will see the text box with some toolbars above it. If you see the word "templates" that's where they are. If you don't, please let me know.--SPhilbrickT 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just too busy right now to study and learn new things like that, very confusing. Seems to me a lot of good work was done on that article by a number of users before, including bringing just about all the references up to par as per the advice of other experienced people. If there still are serious problems, they are going to have to be addressed more extensively by others, at least for now. Thank you again for all you kind concern! Sincerely yours, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, not a problem. If you'd like some help on it some day, you know where to find me.--SPhilbrickT 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your original help request

Aciram has now installed a spell checker; it doesn't seem to work on existing text, but it does work on new material she adds. I'm sorry that the two of you don't see eye to eye; I emphatically do not want to learn more about why this came about, I have no interest in figuring out who was more right and who was more wrong. I accept that she is trying to improve her editing, I hope you will "start over" and see if her contributions improve. Of course, a spell checker is no panacea, and some errors will inevitably remain. I have offered to review some of her contributions, so check the issues that won't show up with a spell checker. I appreciate you bringing this concern to my attention, I think we have found at least a partial solution; let's see if we can move forward and continue to build this encyclopedia. --SPhilbrickT 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate not having that user on my talk page at all, neither in mentions by other users or in her own additions to it. I dearly hope she appreciates the help you are giving her. Let's leave it at that! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Albert IV, Duke of Mecklenburg

Can you fix Albert IV, Duke of Mecklenburg? It's is a really confusing article and I think the people on the German wiki got him mixed with his uncle Albert of Sweden since he was considered for the Danish throne not the Swedish throne and Olaf II was never appointed King of Sweden.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Thx for letting me know! Will have to wait a number of hours before I can get to it. Article seems to be a mishmosh of true and false. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Gustav Vasa's name

Hi Serge

Regarding your revert of my edit to the Gustav Vasa article:

Although Swedes in general used patronyms instead of family names up to the mid 1850s, Swedish nobility had been using it at least since the 14th century in order to show their lineage. Also, from the late 16th century family names became very popular among priests, scientists and other intellectuals, often using latinised names. Famous examples of this are Carl Linnaeus, the large Celcius family (from Magnus Celsius to Anders Celsius), the Rudbeck family (from Johannes Rudbeckius to Olof Rudbeck the Younger), and the Nobel family (starting with Petrus Olai Nobelius in the 1670s).

As for examples in nobility, we have the Bonde family, the Bielke family, and the Grip family.

Regarding Gustav Vasa, he came from the Vasa noble family, which goes back to at least Nils Kettilsson Vasa, who lived in the mid 1350s. His mother was of the Eka family, which went back to at least the 1330s.

People with family names would also have a patronym, indicating who they were the son or daughter of, which is why Gustav Vasa's full name is given as Gustav Eriksson Vasa (as he was the son of Erik Johansson Vasa).

The actual usage of the family names varied. Some would use it as part of their name (when signing documents etc.), while others would just use their first name and patronym. Because of this varied usage, some Swedish genealogists prefer to write the family name in brackets after the patronym, while others just add it without brackets.

So, Gustav Vasa's family name should always be included in his pre-royal name, either within brackets or without. In the Swedish Wiki article they do it in brackets, but as this is a particular Swedish usage, with a meaning not understood in the English-speaking world, I think it's better to write it without brackets - which is also the normal practice when handling other Swedish nobility in English Wiki. As for Gustav himself, the fact that he became known throughout Sweden as Gustav Vasa during the rebellion against the Danes, indicates that he used his family name and actually preferred it - a family name gave you roots and separated you from the thousands of other Gustav Eriksson's in a country which usually used patronyms. His family was famous and old, which gave him clout needed for receiving support around the country.

Not including it in the first sentence also makes the dependent clause in the first sentence very strange: "born Gustav Eriksson and later known as Gustav Vasa". Did he change his name, and if so, why? If it instead says "born Gustav Eriksson Vasa and later known simply as Gustav Vasa", there is no confusion.

Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I must support Serge's revert here: while it is true that a few family names were in use among the higher nobility (like "Trolle" and "Sture"), the great majority did not use them. In many cases, this was not because they did not "like" them, they simply had no such name. Further, king Gustav was never referred to as "Gustav Vasa" in his own time; that is a much later invention.

And the idea that it is a genealogist practise to put family names within brackets is also wrong. AFAIK, historians also use them almost without exception, and has been doing so for quite some time.

Andejons (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas: This "the fact that he became known throughout Sweden as Gustav Vasa ... indicates that he used his family name and actually preferred it" shows me that you are speculating and that you wish to base new information in WP's article about King Gustav on your own speculations. That is what we are not supposed to do. Don't do that, please! If you can find a reliable source that asserts that Gustav was né Vasa, by all means puts that in and cite that source! That's what we are supposed to do. I feel quite certain that no such source exists. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

{{help}} Other neutral editors please help here! Kuiperr's unnecessary nitpicking continues, just to bug me, not to do constructive work. Please help NOW!!!!! SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This incident is already being dealt with, over on ANI. There is no need to use a 'helpme' as well.

I also strongly recommend that you remove the second section you created on ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help!.

Making repeated demands in several places will not help in any way. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I second this. People are already looking at the original thread - ANI is watched by lots of editors, and there's just no way that the thread could have been missed. Starting a second thread is only adding to the drama, and please remember that we are at ANI because we are trying to avoid drama. I recommend you remove the new thread, and wait for new developments. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done - very sorry. I misunderstood the urgency. Explained there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I hope you manage to resolve things. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Be well and do not get stressed out!

Bearian (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bearian! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Wounded Knee Massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yellow Bird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Queen Silvia of Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Helvig of Schleswig

Hey you helped me out a little with the article and image on Helvig of Schleswig a while ago. Can you create images from [13], [14], [15], along with with a colorful version to go with the bland black and white one on Valdemar IV? Thank you in advance.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I'll be glad to do this later today. The color image of both of them, your link #13 here, is pretty high quality and should suffice for portraits of both of them, rather than using #15 and #16, which I think are too dark and and unfortunately quite side-swiped. See what you think when I'm done, and let me know if you'd like the other 2 uploaded also! I can brighten them a bit but of cource can't fix the angle. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think? I've done the English and Swedish articles of the queen and the king. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice thanks! Could you center more on the picture of Valdemar and less on the surrounding fresco?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I uploaded a cropped version too. Here it is. You can make the change yourself if you'd like. I used about the same version as the b/w was in, but you have a point. His face is more interesting than the surroundings for this use. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Next time, provide proof. Diff's that show: interaction issues, how you have tried to resolve them, how you have done an WP:RFC/U that still didn't resolve the issues. Without those things, an interaction ban will almost never be even discussed, let alone pass. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins: Thank you for taking the trouble to reply here! I thought that link, provided by an editor I consider neutral and helpful, would be enough to illustrate past problems. And I don't know how many times I must rehash the same peoblems in order to get help. At that time (the link) Commons had discussed Kuiper's reoccurring vengeful tactics at length, again, and I also felt that was helpful then in revealing them as used against me and other editors Kuiper dislikes and harasses. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Perhaps it is utopian to think that it should be enough, to get action, for any victim of it to report a known problem editor indulging in his usual and well documented form of harassment? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll address your questions and remarks here instead of on ANI:

Yes, you have had dealings with me, if you can call them that. I responded to one of your ANI reports in June last year, see here. Note that I said basically the same thing to you there as I did this time around. It is also why I read all your previous ANI reports, not because of some unhealthy interest in you. I had to go fact-finding because you didn't provide any background info by way of diffs yourself. See a pattern here? Also, we encountered one another here. I wonder why you can't remember that. Do you know who I have never had any contact or dealings with? Pieter Kuiper. Your condescending bit about how we must be great friends because we're both Dutch is beyond ridiculous and just makes you look bad.

Now, I'm not attacking you, I'm criticizing you. You just can't go around name-calling like you do on ANI without the proper evidence to back it up. Really, answer me this. Why do you believe it is okay for you to say all those things, but when I call you out on it, I'm "blasting the living daylights out of you"? Do you have such a low threshold for criticism? Interestingly, you critize Lecen here for baseless insults, yet that's exactly what your doing as well. Apparently, as long as you are the one doing the name-calling, it's fair game.

You must realize that when you post a report on ANI, your side of story will be scrutinized. People aren't just going to take your word for it. Like Bwilkins says, try to back up your accusations with diffs next time. Note that a diff of PK helpfully providing a new image isn't going to help you get an interaction ban.--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Atlan: I told you elsewhere that you and I have nothing to discuss. Please respect that by staying off my talk page! Apparently I have blocked you out of my mind before. That's what I'd like to do again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Respect has to go both ways. You show me none. Anyway, I'll stay away regardless as my words land on deaf ears. Happy editing.--Atlan (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't stay away did you? Desire to have the last say, I guess. That's always tempting.

Would never even enter my mind to try to criticize you on your talk page (see below!). Deaf ears is exactly right.

I respect you, that's why I don't want to argue about personal matters with someone whose standpoint I do not in any way understand. I am trying to avoid further conflict by avoiding people I consider hopelessly belligerent. I am not belligerent, that is I never start trouble. That's a fact. But I reserve the right to respond in any way I choose if anyone goes out of their way to insult and ridicule and badmouth me or anyone else who does not deserve it.

You have done your best to fan the flames on this one. You now have the opportunity to stop doing that. Take it! It's a good one.

If you respect me, you will never write another word here again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(See above!) ... unless you slandered me there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's "libel" for written words, not slander. Please be careful using such legal terms, per Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats. Continuing down that road will lead to blocks.--Atlan (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page - this is the third time I have asked you to! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SergeWoodzing and implied legal threats regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Atlan (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Old spellings of kings John

Thought you might enjoy this. I don't think you need to post it there and clutter the thread, but since you asserted some past spellings might be different, you might be curious to know what variations they were (these are Portuguese, I've omitted Latin & foreign sources; from documents I already had at hand, I haven't bothered searching for later ones):

• from a book published during the lifetime of John VI, (1792), we have the title: Collecção de livros ineditos de historia portugueza, dos reinados de D. Joaõ I., D. Duarte, D. Affonso V., e D. Joaõ II. [16]. Note that diacritic is on the 'o', not 'a'.

Some older documents:

• Chancellary letters from John I, 1410s, from Monumenta Henricina, spells himself as "Dom Joham", [17]
• Letters from chancellary of John II, 1490s: spells himself as "Dom Ioham" or "Dom Joham", [18] (note later letter of John III, as "Dom Johã")
• Letter from John III in 1529 "Dom Joam" [19]
• Letter from John III in 1534: "Dom Johão" [20]
• official chronicler Fernão Lopes (1400s, 1644 ed.) "D.Ioam" [21]
• official chronicler Gomes Eanes de Zurara (1453, 1841 ed.) "dom Joham" [22]
• chronicler Acenheiro (1535), spells it "Dom Joam" [23]
• Comentarios of Afonso Albuquerque (early 1500s, 1774 ed.): "dom joham" [24],
• Chronicler Damião de Góis (1567): "Dom Ioam" [25]
• Chronicler Fernão Lopes de Castanheda (1550s, 1833 ed.): "dom Ioão" [26]
• Anononymous chronicle, Breve Summario dos Reys (1555, 1570 ed.): "dom Joan" [27]
• chronicler Duarte Nunes de Leão (1643) "Dõ Joam" [28]
• chronicler Manuel de Faria e Sousa (1666) "D. Juan" [29]
• historian Carvalho da Costa (1708) "D. Joaõ" [30],
• historian Caetano de Sousa (1748, 1744) "D. Joaõ" [31], [32]

Enjoy! Walrasiad (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, did I ever enjoy! Thank you so much! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I've replied there. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Also as a condition of having Atlan not post to your talk page, you shouldn't be posting comments about him anywhere that he could feel a need to respond to. Probably obvious, but just making sure that's clear too. Prodego ^talk 23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Clear, unless he mentions me first and puts me on a necessary defensive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback 2012-01-14

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Talk:Dacia (disambiguation).
Message added 16:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please read the primary topic discussion Codrin.B (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I have that page covered on my watchlist so there is no need to message me here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dacia (disambiguation)

He's actually right about the "Primary topic" version of a disambig page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the article talk page instead! I posed a question that needs addressing there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See my response on the talk page. I can see you have Danish roots, maybe that's why you keep insisting on this. Regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of this topic is not welcome here on my talk page. If you really want to accuse me of ethnic bias, do so on the article's talk page and stay away from here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of interaction ban

SergeWoodzing, I have closed your recent ANI thread where you agreed to a voluntary "no fault" interaction ban in respect to User:Pieter Kuiper. Consequently, you are now under an interaction ban per the above conditions.

I have notified Pieter Kuiper and have warned him/her that his/her behavior towards you will become more visible during this period and have warned him/her to be conscious of his/her behavior.

As a kind word, please, be very careful for the next six months: even though this ban is voluntary, you may be blocked if you breach it. DO NOT interact with Pieter Kuiper for the next six months unless you want to risk being blocked.

Regards, --RA (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Can we agree that this only concerns English Wikipedia? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It only concerns the English Wikipedia. --RA (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Email contact

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Here we go again

Dear SergeWoodzing,

I must say I find myself rather disappointed in both you, as well as the way you choose to express yourself. From my experience you appear to have a tendency to cause or dive into frays as often as possible, voicing your complaints of others while you yourself seem to have no problems taking to rude or plain abusive language. Your editing comment, and its confrontational tone, is not only redundant; it is irrelevant and without ground. On several occasions, during the editing process on the Swedish project, I have found myself on the receiving end of your gibes, and I am quite fed up with your snotty behaviour. I actually start to suspect that the aversion you display towards me is only founded in the fact that on several occasions I have intercepted your attempts to introduce articles about yourself and your friends. If you actually had any interest in proper NPOVs, not to mention a decent editing comment, you ought to have noticed Sjö's and later Steinberger's edits. The only thing you might possibly achieve with your crass attempts to appear in better light by implying that the contributions I’ve made to Wikipedia are inadequate and biased is to fuel further conflicts. My substantial NPOV contributions to the Swedish project are well known and recognized by our fellow peers and editors. The fact that you claim POV in your editing comment while removing referenced information from the article makes your accusations even less credible. However, instead of keeping up this unproductive conflict between us I would like to suggest that we cast our differences aside. Let us instead focus our energy on our Wikipedia-contributions and advance our aspirations for unbiased, informative, and well referenced articles.

Regards, Dnm (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It is allowed to remove anything that is of no importance to WP work from one's own talk page, at least it is so here on enWP.

It is not appropriate for you to reverse any such thing on anyone else's talk page.

With respect to your final sentence here, OK I must recognize your attempt at a truce, after having first slung a whole paragraph of mud at me. I will leave your text here for now, for at least 24 hours, and give you a chance to cool off and read what you wrote more carefully and strike strike things that are unfounded in fact, and thus cannot be substantiated by you or anyone else, or otherwise inappropriate.

In order for you to accuse me of trying to promote my "friends" on WP, I believe you would have to know my actual private identity. Such references of yours here, aside from being misrepresentions of facts (I have removed a lot of fluff and other garbage from articles about people I know and am on good terms with) are not appropriate or becoming to you.

It looks to me like you may be indulging in a little indirect and/or sly attempt to out me here.

You have widely broadcast your political views in public yourself under your WP user names, and made me and thousands of others aware of them, so I just cannot consider you neutral in some of your editings on political and ideological matters.

Of course, every person involved in politics would like to promote h views as much as possible, and I fully respect the right everyone has to do that - elsewhere, but not on WP where we must be neutral.

If in 24 hours you have not stricken your aggressive and belligerent and other inappropriate comments above, I will either strike them myself, or remove this whole section again. It will then be impossible for me, I'm sorry, to take your alleged attempt at conciliation seriously, thrown in as a final sentence after all that diatribe and acrimony. You can hardly expect "peace" after such brutal conquest and subjugation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: "Both you", you wrote, who else do you mean besides me? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GG stamps

Sounds good. Works well with your tweak, "A number"; If you google/images GG Stamps, you'll see there are eight, including one from the Ivory Coast and another from Cuba. Also Germany and several from Sweeden. May be should say "Many"? Should we add "from a several nations." Your thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweden!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Just counted 10 (one from Benin (?) and another from Rumania.!) THis list is probably inexact. But I leave the wording up to you.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanx! I think "a number of" or "several" is OK for 8-10 countries out of the world's 180 or so. It's fun to know she generated all that postal interest. I met her once briefly in 1981. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good day, Serge

I want to ask you a favour. Can I put here a little text of a portuguese article's translation so you could correct my bad english? It is more or less 30 lines. Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be my pleasure, Jorge. Great idea! I just hope I know what you mean all the way through. Will do my best.- SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think I will take more or less a week to finish my (bad) translation. Then, I will put it here. A great salut, or, in portuguese, um grande abraço. Jorge alo (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

See you later then. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My edit to Valdemar, King of Sweden

Aciram asked me for some advice regarding naming conventions. I made an edit that may retain the naming convention of the Richeza of Sweden, Queen of Poland, yet achieve the desired parallelism in Valdemar, King of Sweden. Does this work for you, or am I missing some WP convention?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping and asking! I see no reason why any phonetically obstructive foreign language words ever should be added to any article on English WP if and when it is not necessary. In that case it is not, and it especially inappropriate because the direkt link is all in English, as preferred by policy.

Can't see where any parallelism could be significant enough in that case. King Sigismund of Poland and Sweden had daughters too, but why should we call them Sigismundsdotter (or Polish equivb) in English?

Richeza wasn't even known as Valdemarsdotter in her own time in Sweden, so there is even less reason to call her that ever in English.

Her sister Marianne "Marina" (a new article by Aciram) doesn't have known years that would allow us to name her article in the format of her sister Ingiburga (Sw: Ingeborg), but I will research that.

Btw, I don't like Richeza of Sweden, Queen of Poland as an article name but that's because I don't like that format for any of the royal ladies. I'd like to see Richeza of Poland, Princess of Sweden and such all the way around. But that's a little beside the point here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

PS I've had a look at your dicussion with Aciram and made another edit. That should satisfy everyone? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossed messages

Sorry about the crossed messages or if I sounded abrupt. I didn't mean to.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done and thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Duchies in Sweden

Hi. I certainly have no general bone to pick with 'phonetic empathy' (as you term it); I'm perfectly fine with exonyms that have become regularized in English, such as 'Cologne' rather than 'Köln'. But I thought they were inappropriate for this list for several reasons: 1) The list was a weird hodgepodge of Swedish, English, and Latin names. 2) Many of the exonyms in use seemed (in my admittedly inexpert experience) to be fairly obscure themselves, not at all regularized in everyday English. 3) Most importantly, readers' natural tendency will be to read this article in conjunction with Provinces of Sweden and it makes a lot of sense to have a common system at both pages. It seems to me that if you really want to promote your exonyms, you should try to get them accepted on that page first (which is certainly a much higher-traffic one than this). 4) Finally, there was a forest-for-trees problem going on: the article's attention seemed in danger of wandering away from its actual ducal content toward a tangential discussion of province names.

With regard to the alphabetical ordering of special Swedish characters: I don't have a horse in this race myself: but I would like this article and Provinces of Sweden to follow a similar methodology. Once again: people will tend to read the two pages in conjunction; and if you really think Swedish alphabetical norms are inappropriate for the Wikipedia your cause would be better promoted there.

With regard to the cross-references — I really don't see what they added besides clutter. Anybody who is scanning the list will see the alternative names beside the Swedish ones; anybody who comes to the list looking for a specific name can use control-f to search the page for the name in question just as easily as they can find it alphabetically in the list. Bear in mind that this isn't a book index or a card catalogue or a hefty telephone directory, something in which people frequently make focused alphabetical searches: it's simply a list of fewer than 25 provinces, which will mostly be read, not searched.

With regard to the list of omitted provinces — yes, you're certainly right, the notion that these seven provinces have never been granted is certainly the motivation for that section. (Indeed, to tell the truth, the lack of that section is what brought me to this article today: I wanted to know if any provinces had been overlooked by history.) But! I didn't feel comfortable making the claim that those seven provinces "have never had any dukes or duchesses" since I have absolutely no expertise or sources to call on. I could have assumed that the article as it stood was authoritative; but that's a big assumption to make and obviously an article can't cite an earlier version of itself as a source. Do you have the requisite expertise / sources to put a footnote on that claim you added? If not, we'd better try to come up with another wording that motivates the section without making unjustified claims.

Finally, would you be ok with deleting Stegeborg altogether? It violates the principle set down in the paragraph above that the list "excludes minor duchies (individual towns, manors, mines, estates)" and probably snuck in by accident, I imagine? Cheers, Doops | talk 08:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Stegeborg cannot be excluded in a list that "excludes minor duchies (individual towns, manors, mines, estates)", since it was none of the above. It was a county at that time.

Excluding cross-references would seem to violate guidelines on clarity. People looking for East Gothland are not apt to look under O-- (or Ö--). Perhaps you know Swedish and that's why you find these things obvious?

Finding a reference acceptable to WP that states literally that France, Thailand, Hawaii and Mongolia never have had Elizabeth II as their head of state is about what you are asking for. Those provinces have never had dukes - they have never been on any published list of provinces that have.

I am not going to police the alphabet all over - will make the change you desire, however. The letter 'Ö', as a matter of fact, does not exist in the English language and thus cannot be used in alpbabetizing anything in English. Wherever we see things like that being done, it's wrong. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Richardice of Sweden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richardice of Sweden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richardice of Sweden 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. RA (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

Hi Serge! I'm one of those chaps that hang out at Adopt-A-User. Just thought I would suggest that you'd do quite well to snoop though the list of adopters and see if there's one that you think you'd do well with, then drop him or her a message. I'm currently working to reboot the system, it's in quite a lull at the moment and I seem to be adopting everyone myself! Good luck finding an adopter, let me know if you've got any questions. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Worm! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. When you recently edited Walk on the Wild Side (Lou Reed song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Underground culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment (to myself, I guess) that page is another one of our hybrids (mutant monstrosities?) between an article and a disambiguation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

image issue with Mohombi

the image that you insist in having was taken 10 years ago. Why not have a more recent image????????? Jawadreventon (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop being accusatory, please! I only "insist" we use free images. It would be great to have a new one in this case, but WP isn't supposed to use images with copyright issues and/or unclear origins. In its short life span, that article has already had a long history of attempts to add images that are not clearly free. Just like the others, the problem image you added has been deleted at Commons. Wouldn't WP work be easy if we could add any images we found!?!?!?!?!!! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Garbo

[Comment moved here from my user page - SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)] Hi there Serge, No ability to start new section on your p. so here I am. Sorry. Just wondering out of curiosity what your latest edit was to the Garbo p: Category:People illustrated on Swedish banknotes]]. Where was that shown? Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand (1) why you posted this on my user page, as if that were my talk page, nor (2) what you mean by "Where was that shown?" The category, if that's what youi mean, was shown where categories usually are shown in the editable text, near the article bottom. I removed the category as per WP:CBALL since no such bank notes have been issued and are only scheduled for possible issue in 2014 at the earliest. Is that what you meant? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoaah there. 1) I inadvertently wrote on your user p. because I'm unfamiliar with user pp. Don't know what they're for. So, I thought I was writing on your talk page. (I've rewritten the GG p but still don't ustand a lot of WP's protocols. I.e., I'm dumb.) Anyway, please accept my appology for this mistake. 2) I've never dealt with the categories at the bottom of the p., and since I'm dumb, as I say, I'm not sure what change you made. But, judging from your explanation, it's obviously important so thanks! Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So, I see from a previous chat between us that you met her in '81. What were your impressions?!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

She met a handsome yooung man at that time, who according to her "spoke to me in beautiful Swedish" when she was on her way to a party in her friend Alfredo De La Vega's building in West Hollywood. He later said that she was in hight spirits over that meeting and stayed longer than usual. She walked with a cane at the time, but still went out for her habitual long walk after dinner - had the same recognizable page-boy coif (though grey) and seemed alert, though she held a handkerchief in her hand and put it in front of her mouth, as she was known to do when talking to strangers.

Good Luck to you in learning all the wills and ways of WP. I had a hard time too at first. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. How fascinating! Thanks for encouragement in learning the vagaries of WP. Now. Important thing. I just read Broman's book and you were right about her explanation to him about her reason for retiring. So I just added it to the article. Friends and colleagues did add their thoughts about her retirement, but her explanation to Broman is significant and correlates with her deep unhappiness in Hollywood (and about her work) which she regularly wrote about in letters to friends. But please accept my apology for dismissing your comment a while back. Enjoy your many projects with WP! Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello SergeWoodzing. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming

Good day Serge. I apologize for haven't said nothing, but soon I will come, with the article's translation. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

duc to Duke

Given you comment on Talk:Elizabeth of Denmark, Electress of Brandenburg I think you may be interested in this section Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#duc to Duke -- PBS (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! As you probably know, I'm always interested in promoting the use of English on this project if and when nothing else is reasonable and timely. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

relevant photo in thomas d

hi sergewoodzing, this is not a relevant photo and thomas absolutely hates that picture. gruß sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebarts (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the very interesting photo of the Mae West Centenary group is quite relevant to what was going on in the subject person's life at the time (1993), and you'll find that Wikipedia doesn't care whether or not a bio'd person likes what's in h article, as long as there is nothing defamatory, of course. That photo is in no way controversial. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankie and Johnny

Simply put, a picture of a nonnotable group of singers, who are alleged to be singing the song which is the article's subject, but which group is never discussed anywhere in the article, is not, by any standard I can imagine, relevant. This could be just anybody singing any song, we have no way of knowing. How do you make the case that it is relevant? As for it being the only image in the article, that is not relevant either. The article could have other images, if one searched and found images that actually illustrated the subject. This one, as far as I can tell, does not. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would never have uploaded the image to Commons using an established OTRS there if there had been the slightest doubt in my mind that it is a legitimate rendering of the song on a well known New York stage. The group's Facebook page clearly shows that the song has been in its regular repertoire for years. A bit of research, in other words, makes the image relevant to me, where I put it in, of course not as a main photo for the whole article about the song, but at least relevant to that section. Shall we let others comment too, on the article's talk page? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article's talk page is the place for this. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at Jawadreventon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jawadreventon (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian problem

Can you help me upload Sweyn I, coin, 10th century; in the Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen and cut out the side with the face on File:Harald III.png? Thank you. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

2 requests right?

I'll be glad to if you'll have another think about you-know-what (which you've said you've thought about before anyway, long before I brought it up). The deal isn't that you do it, just that you have another good constructive think about it. OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is also one for Olav Kyrre if you don't mind. And I will think about it. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

3 requests. Deal! Will get to it later today. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One more. If you can cut the side with the face on File:Magnus Berrføtt 1.png. Now I feel like I have to. If you can give the links, I will try it but if anything comes up or it proves too difficult my consideration is all I can give you. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We may not be talking about the same thing. I meant something almost too sentive for me to dare mention again. The only time we really got into a big fix. Now I'm curious as to what you mean. Sounds juicy. Going off now for about an hour. Later! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about the name change right. I was adding this when edit conflict occurred...And would you mind giving me a number of suggestions because I am not really in the mood to think up one. RoyaltyChamp just doesn't sound right. Could I retain the same meaning but remove the Queen's name since she'll die soon, like HRM's Spy?...--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - links here:

• Olaf
  
• Swain
  
• Harold
  
• Magnus
  

Will email you some suggestions - a little anonymous privacy is called for. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Should Eric Christoffersen of Denmark be considered a King of Denmark? Medieval records called him rex and he was elected and crowned as King.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems not. Danes call hom "joint King" with his father but don't seem to count him independantly as King.

Totte Dellert

Hi Serge, i was adding some new references to the article and i see its at all very difficult with the wikipedia community attitude for new articles and content. So now the article has 3 warning marks. Especially about the notability iam concerned. Here is an attitude that you first of all shoot then ask, interesting to me if someone has not a sufficient knowledge about a matter. Especially its more difficult if there is a less digitalized background - fine arts, musicals, punk - and a swedish name - which various a lot from totte dellert to thomas dellacroix. Can you help - the admin joe dekker, marked and deleted all, and i missed to undo the mark - to get rid of the warning marks and to improve the article? Thx Sebarts (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've done as much as I can here, and I'm not knowlegeable enough to do more. It must be shown, by adding more neutral references/sources, that Dellert/Dellacroix/Dollar has made cultural contributions that are interesting enough to the general reader that he will be considered notable and the criticism in that regard can be removed. Has any major newspaper anywhere ever written an article or a review about him? Or has there been any television coverage of him and his career? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

PS I've now added a couple of well referenced sentences about his stage debut in 1975, which I've accessed through the Ristesson files. Besides the photo from the 1993 West Centenary with all those Swedish celebrities, that I added before, I'm afraid I have nothing else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

4RR Question

Had the four reverts been on an article page, or an article talk page? If they were on an article talk page, then the history is still present in the talk page rather than the archive. Also, the 3RR rule usually applies to article pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Swedish Royal Family. Revert 1: [33], revert 2: [34], revert 3: [35] and revert 4: [36]. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, but I'm not sure if I did everything right there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, reports are not ignored unless they are "stale", that is, if the edit-warring was in the past and is not continuing, in which case the edit-warrior may be warned rather than blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SergeWoodzing. You have new messages at FurrySings's talk page.
Message added 03:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you! Though I now can expect never-ending tirades, I've commented as well as I can right now. Pressed for time with other matters - life outside WP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)