Jump to content

User talk:Inge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Janke (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 15 July 2006 (Sweden-Finland). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Inge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 20:22, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

ancestry in royal Norway

I wrote a detailed reply to your inquiry under Talk:Haakon VII of Norway 217.140.193.123 11:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Norway

Hi! Thank you for creating and populating Category:Battles of Norway. A minor point - Category:Battles of the Vikings was intended to be a temporary category until the battles were properly ordered, and should be removed when you add a more specific category tag. Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team:

Welcome to Wikiproject Battles. I hope you enjoy the group.

If you need any questions answered, please feel free to post a question on the following's talk pages:

LordAmeth Kirill Lokshin Philip Baird Shearer R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) And of course, me.

Happy wiki-ing.

Spawn Man 08:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Storm class patrol boat sources

Would it be possible to add some sources to your new article. I guess you will have the easiest access to them right now and it helps later with verification. You can use footnotes to do this or there are several other ways. Give me a shout if you want help. Mozzerati 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Leif Welding-Olsen.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

  • The copyright holder, and
  • The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

  • The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.
  • Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.
  • Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. ~MDD4696 00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Defense Web Page information

In reference to your comment on my talk page: I have tried to find a tag which fits, but there isn't one and I don't know how to make one. I have emailed the administrators of www.mil.no and the reply was that all information on the page could be used as long as the source was mentioned. It wasn't too clear if this also applied to pictures, but pictures are information in my view. mil.no carries no copyright tags/claims. Wikipedia is intended for non-profit, educational use. I therefore do not see wikipedia as being in violation here. I only think it might be a problem if the information was misused.

This issue is probably also valid for all info/pictures from any Norwegian government web page. I am not sure about Norwegian copyright rules in general, but they are most likely the same as any other Western European country. I would like a special tag for Norwegian government/defense force pictures, but as I said I am not sure about how to make it or how to formulate the correct legal languate. If someone wants to check this stuff with odin.no or mil.no and then make a tag I would be very happy. Inge 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I did some more research and came up with a brief paper categorizing a number of countries by copyright law with regard to government works. It lists Norway as a country where there are not copyrights on government works.
The Commons states that "Photos of people may not be published without their consent unless either ... the image illustrates a current event of interest the general public." That may be a mistake--I don't see why past events of interest to the public would be excluded. A portion of Norwegian copyright law has been translated into English, available in HTML or PDF format. Also, the U.S. Library of Congress seems to have a good Norwegian Law portal set up as well.
I don't speak Norwegian, and I'm completely unfamiliar with their laws, but if you'd like to create a template for works of the Norwegian Government, those pages would be a good place to start. I'm sure there are people at [Wikipedia talk:Copyrights] who'd be willing to help you furthur.
If you have received permission from the site to license the work under the GFDL, take a look at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. I will tag the image as public domain as a work of the Norwegian Government for now, since they said it would be ok with attribution and this is a non-profit, educational use. If you have any furthur comments or questions, be sure to let me know!
This discussion will be copied to Image talk:Leif Welding-Olsen.jpg. ~MDD4696 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underprosjekt Militærhistorie

Hei! På norsk wikipedia har vi et aktivt underprosjekt militærhistorie. Jeg har lagt merke til at du har bidratt på lignende ting her på en:. Hvis du er interessert i å skrive litt på morsmålet, så er du hjertelig velkommen! Harald Hansen 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Viking warships.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Admrboltz (T | C) 21:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See {{PD-NOGov}} --Admrboltz (T | C) 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know this template exists. I requested it, but it has not been legally assesed. Before anyone uses it the matter must be properly cheched out. For instance I believe it is possible to use images from www.mil.no as they told me all info from this page could be used freely, but other norwegian agencies might see this differently.Inge 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

WikiProject Military history The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.
The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy e 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Løwendals galley in a storm.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. cohesion★talk 09:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:HNoMY_Norge.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 11:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rune_Gjeldnes_in_Antarctica.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Cross and Southern Cross flags

Hallå Inge. I saw that you are the creator of the article on Nordic Cross Flags. Why not make a similar page that depicts Southern Cross flags, as well? I promise to assist wholeheartedly! =} //Big Adamsky 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, why not.:) Inge 12:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it needs a good search for "unknown" flags:) Inge 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Perhaps there are more "flag families" that could be added. And the Flags of non-sovereign nations and other entities and groups that use flags to graphically symbolize/represent of themselves, some of whom could also fit into those articles (e.g. Mercosur and Garifuna). //Big Adamsky 13:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hooked on flags of Norway now. Very interesting subject, and possibly a never-ending article...Inge 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Standard of Norway

Hi Inge. I'm confused by something in your Royal Standard of Norway stub. The article says the Royal Standard of Norway is used by the King of Norway yet the caption to the picture says that that's the standard of the Crown Prince (who I assume is not the King). Why is the article illustrated with a flag that's not relevant to it (or is the caption wrong?) Regards Tonywalton  | Talk 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I see you've fixed it now. Cheers. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK :) Inge 15:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inge, do you know if the Old Kingdom had a flag? //Big Adamsky 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article: List of flag names

Can you think of any others to add here? =J //Big Adamsky 02:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few.Inge 02:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more flag business....

Hello there. Nice job on the history of the flag of Norway, keep it up! I was wondering, do you think any of these flag files (uploaded by me, following your example) may be useful in relevant articles, e.g. Nordic Cross - or are they perhaps too obscure and uncommon? //Big Adamsky 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion and good start!
Well I did start the article Flag of Nord-Norge, but I might regret it. I am not sure. I like flags :) and I don't see any harm in adding them, but at the same time there is this notability thing. I'm from Vestlandet, but I have never ever seen or heard of this flag File:Unofficial flag of Vestlandet.gif. Allthough me hearing of a flag doesn't deside whether it is notable or not :). I haven't heard of the Båhuslen flag either, but I have heard of the flag of Jemtland File:Unofficial flag of Jämtland.gif being used by some Jemtlanders. So some of these flags actually have a group of people using them and some have their creator as only "fan". But if you want to add them, I say add them. Then we can find out more about them as we go.Inge 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more. We will just have to add the ones that seem reasonably popular and well associated with the region or people they purpurtedly represent/symbolize. PS: Sjekk mailen din. :) //Big Adamsky 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Takk for mailen. Maybe it's time to start Flags of Norwegian subdivisions, Flags of Swedish subdivisions and so on. The official county flags of Norway are already most of them gathered at List of flags of Norway so the process has begun. Inge 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. :) There are already articles about unofficial regions and unofficial flags, so I guess we could just fill up those articles. There is of course the question of notability... Oh well. ;P Anyway, what do you reckon about this? //Big Adamsky 14:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the flags could be added to those articles as well. I was thinking more along the lines of making articles primarily about the official flags of the counties and municipalities. As they are approved by the Government of Norway they are certainly official and reliable information is possible to be found. I don't know what the case is in Sweden but I think most counties and municipalities there have official flags as well.? Then the unofficial flags could be added in a special section in the same article. Inge 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The modern French regions, like those of other subnational administrative units, will sometimes use the historical flags (or emblems on flags) of traditional regions. But many will use newly designed "futuristic" logos devoid of historical or heraldic symbolism, that quite frankly resemble corporate logos more than anything flag-like in appearance. //Big Adamsky 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't know much about french flags. Personally I can't think of any reason why the french have done it that way. The new flags are ugly and as you say resemble corporate logos. At the same time they could have used nice historic flags. The Norwegian subdivisions with the opportunity to revive an old coat of arms or flag have jumped at it. (You might have noticed i have started Flags of Norwegian subdivisions).Inge 15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:HNoMS Gribb of Tjeld class.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 15:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen OPV.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 15:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inge, thanks for the response. I have gone through your link on copyrights talk page and it seems that you have created images in a pretty amount related to Norwegian government and defense services. I have tagged one of the uploaded images by you. But don't remember exactly what it was? But it starts with HNoMS. Reason to tag this image was it was pretty old as per the link, so i tagged the image with {{PD-old-50}}. One bigger problem to tag other images is the language which I am unable to understand whatever written on the website and they are not too old. I think you can use fair use for these images, i am not sure as I don't know what the law says exactly. If I get any solution for these images, I will surely let you know. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 22:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images from www.mil.no

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Norwegian_defense_or_government_images. Can you help?Inge 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be going pretty well, I don't know Norwegian though, so I probably can't contribute much :D - cohesiont 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ny-Sunnmøre?

Inge, do you have any inside knowledge on this? // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 10:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on Talk:Erik the Red's Land Inge 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

delivered by Loopy e 04:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

New municipal and regional emblems after 2007?

Hello Inge! I hope you are doing well. Here's a question that you may be able to answer. :) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine thanks:) I have answered on Talk:Subdivisions of Denmark. Inge 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villages in Sogn og Fjordane

Hi! Thanks for adding information to the article List of villages in Norway. However, the work on splitting the list into sublists have started (the list got a new design today, check it out). In the case of Sogn og Fjordane, the villages should be added to List of villages in Sogn og Fjordane. Thanks, Punkmorten 11:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the broad removal of Category:History of Norway designations

Why the broad removal of Category:History of Norway designations? Williamborg 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to clean up that category a bit. The category should in my view only contain subcategories, the main articles on Norwegian history and articles we are unable to fit in subcategories. I have removed several articles which were also listed in a subcategory of Category:History of Norway. Others have been moved to the apropriate category. If I've made any mistakes please let me know. Inge 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the explanation. The logic appears sound. Let me test it by seeing if all the ones I've observed do roll up to Category:History of Norway. Thanks = Williamborg 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good show. I support your change. Williamborg 03:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Inge 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebla image

What part of Ebla does your Image:Ebla.JPG display?

Thanks for any indication!

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Heihei!

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

Hei Henning! Flott å se flere som ønsker å skrive om Sjøforsvaret! Jeg skal prøve å holde meg oppdatert på det som blir gjort på no: blir bra å få flere artikler der også om skipene. Jeg gleder meg til videre samarbeid. Inge 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hva er så "pennant number" (F-301 og slikt) på norsk? Henning 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Det er pendant nummer. Inge 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Side der Marinemuseet bruker uttrykket Inge 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ser ikke ut som om linken funker. Jeg og Profoss tenkte også på no:Norske marineskip, og om det kunne være mulig å forandre på listestrukturen? Antar det er du som har stått bak denne, så du er kanskje den beste å rådføre seg med. Problemet er at slik den står nå, vil fregattene Oslo og Stavanger ikke lenger være i Fregattvåpenet-seksjonen, som i alle fall jeg synes er best. I stedet havner de under tidligere skip.
Har du noen råd av noe slag? Henning 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prøv å google pendant+marinen det var sånn jeg fant den. Jag synes det er best om de ikke er med i Fregattvåpenet-seksjonen. Den delen er jo for nåværende skip og Oslo og Stavanger er ikke lenger en del av Fregattvåpenet. Det er for så vidt ikke Bergen heller så det mest riktige er vel å flytte den også. Jeg foreslår å skrive en liten beskrivelse ved siden av som gjør folk oppmerksomme på at vi har hatt flere. Inge 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Når det gjelder MTB-våpenet er de fartøyene som ikke er i tjeneste fremdeles med og kan bli brukt som reserve eller bli helt byttet inn. De er fortsatt en resurs for MTB-våpenet og bør derfor være med Inge 19:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... takker. Holder på med Ula nå, tror det blir bra. Vet du datoene for kjølstrekking, sjøsetting og når hver ble tatt inn i tjeneste?

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

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

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

Narvik

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

Märtha of Sweden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Skåne of Sweden" flag or Scanian flag?

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

Hello:) Thank you for the kind remark! I removed the Scanian flag because it is a regional flag of Sweden. The page should in my opinion only contain the official flags of the countries and the official special regions/nations/dependent countries Åland, the Faroes and Greenland and the Sami people. If you start adding regional and unofficial flags such as the flag of Skåne you will have to add them all. I am not against the flag of Skåne or a future special status for the region if that is what the inhabitants want. Skåne is special, but so are many other regions of the Nordic countries. As you say the page is a birds eye view and should not be too detailed in addition there are differing opinions on the subject of minorities. So to avoid cluttering up a page which is not about flags or Skåne and other regions of the Nordic countries I believe it would be best to limit the flag images to only the official ones. That is a fairly clear cut and easily enforced limit, that's all :) Does that sound reasonable? have a nice day! Inge 16:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inge, in my opinion, the majority among the population in Scania is not concerned with territorial changes or the establishment of a new state, any more than the Sami people are. So if we have to wait for that day to include the Scanian flag, I guess the flag is effectively shut out of the Nordic flag community forever. Minority flags are not laying claims to territory or aiming to redrawn borders (and are not confined by state borders either, as is the case with the Sami people, who count their region as stretching over three national states). It's not about creating new nations either: A minority flag simply represent an old nation, a people, who has exerted the right to exist, the right to an identity witin an existing state, and who insists on recognition as a culture and a people with a history that is currently not allowed and not represented by the central state. The UNPO has officially qualified the people of Scania as such a people. (Not without merit, because it is extremely difficult, in general, to have "representation" and history writing monopolized by a region that has "annexed" another through a hostile take-over, especially one with as little initial interest in cultural diversity and as committed to centralization as the one that took over the landlocked part of Scania. I believe that what you see in Scania today is a reaction to issues like self-contempt over having been forced to do code-switching to hide dialects to get ahead (no other dialect than the one from Uppland is really universally accepted in official Swedish context)---add to that the realization that your ancestors were being unjustly vilified in school, and that the many generations of poverty that followed the burning of the ancestral farms was not self-imposed or the result of war, but deliberate plunder and abuse by megalomaniacal invading kings, invariably refered to as heroes in the Swedish history books. After all this time, people like to say, Scanians can be considered totally assimilated and Swedified, but what has happened, I think, is that younger generations have found the falsification of history infuriating and many are therefore refusing to continue with the myth that Scania existed in a vacuum, a Danish black hole, just sitting there with the gaze turned north until finally one sunny day in the mid 1600s, a Swedish king mounted his stallion and rode in to liberate the population from evil and darkness. (Uhm, by killing off about a third or a quarter of the population, sending a bunch to the Baltic States, and driving many more into hiding in the forests, homeless.) Even though most people don’t like to talk about it, the armed resistance against the "Swedification" continued for another 160 years after the initial "rescue". Anyway, I would be very interested to know how official status is determined for wiki pages with minority flags --- which authority is counted on to decide which flags are officially minority flags, for example the Sami people flag. Not to burden you with this, but I know you like flags Inge, so please keep an eye out for this one as well, even if you think it's unofficial, because it may well become an extinct specimen one day. Oops, this is too long. Better get out of here in a rush. :) Best wishes, Pia 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again:) Don't worry about the long text. I too sometimes write huge paragrafs on talk pages. When I say official I mean officially recognised by the government of the country. All the flags on the page now are officially recognised and regulated by laws or other official government regulations. Even the Sami flag is regulated by law (in Norway at least). I realise that it is unfair sometimes as Sweden might be reluctant to recognise the Scanian flag. But it is the easiest way to stop more and more flags being added to this page. The line gets sharply drawn and is not subject to interpretations or POV. I will keep my eye out for the Scaninan flag. I don't know too much about it but is probably one of the most used "unofficial" Nordic regional flags and it is already added to the Nordic Cross Flag page. Take care :) Inge 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inge. Why do you write all kind of unsourced stuff on wikipedia?

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

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

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

Nordic Cross <-> Central America?

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

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

Stop your vandalism!

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

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

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

"Erroneoulsy" means that the people who used the term Danes on other than Danish people were wrong. But the use is no secret. Your question "So what are Danes called Norwegians then?" is a bit difficult to understand, but if I understand it correctly: The Danes called the Norwegians Norwegians, the Norwegians called themselves Norwegians and the Danes Danes, because they knew what the correct use was. I don't think it is common for a people to use a wrong term for themselves either.
Again I would like to ask you to read up on what vandalism on wikipedia is. Some of your edits have been vandalism and you are still engaging in vandalism (probably without knowing it). Please also refrain from using abusive language when communicating with othe wikipedians. Inge 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Substing

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

The recent edit wars and your warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

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

Norwegian "fantasy flag"

Hi Inge

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

Norwegian copyright laws are generally strict I believe. I couldn't find the image by following your link so I guess it has been deleted? That would have been my recommendation anyway. I don't see how that flag could have been used aywhere other than in an article on Fantasy flags and there is most likely an automatic copyright on it. Inge 13:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling they were; so are ours, but I don't think it could be copyrighted under Danish law. The link is dead now, because the Commons decided to keep the image (commons:Image:Flag_of_Bouvet_Island_(rectangular).svg. I have also found a "relative" to it: commons:Image:Flag_of_Bouvet_Island_(local).svg Both are standard Norwegian flags with the colours changed. Anyway, I'm fixing the tags. I'm not Norwegian, but these images don't look even remotely official (do any people actually live on Bouvetøya btw?) The image on the source page (Vexilia Mundi) says that the image is copyrighted, but I think the name is simply the guy making the website's images. I have no idea about the original source behind these images. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody lives on Bouvetøya and this flag will never be used there. It should have been deleted, but so long as it isn't used in articles it doesn't matter too much. Inge 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history importance ratings

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


Norwegian government notorious for downplaying the number of Kvens and the influence of the Kven society and culture in Norway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ObrigadoToYou 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sweden-Finland

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inge&oldid=63974985"