User talk:Olaus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi. It would be nice if you could write something about yourself in your user page. Please include information about language abilities as per Wikipedia:Babel. -Ulla Sweden 10:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lund Cathedral[edit]

Thanks for drawing that to my attention. It was just a really stupid mistake. I've been having problems with that article. I started it enthusiastically when I had five days to work on it and had so many petty interruptions that it never got done. Now I've been sick for the last six weeks, my brain feels like wool! Oh well! --Amandajm 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gustav Vasa[edit]

Thanks for the correction, I'll explain how I made the mistake: I've been going through the article List of Bible translators and adding the Bible translator category to all the translators listed there. I remember thinking that the Gustav Vasa entry looked suspicious - I'd expect a monarch to comission a translation, not engage in the actual act of translation - but I did not have time to read the entire article so I trusted the editor who had added his name to the list and tagged it anyway. I guess that was the wrong move! I should probably remove his name from the list of translators as well; what do you think? --woggly 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalmål translation[edit]

Jag har haft små översättningsjobb, men för mig är det inte praktiskt taget inte värd pengarna. Jag får huvudsnurr av göra det så smånigom. Som de Malet-artikeln, där problemet är att statskuppsektionen är både huvud- och sista rätten. Dalmål är lättare ur den synvinkel.--victor falk 23:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I do some translations jobs from time to time, but they're rather near the limit of not being worth the cash to me. Translating makes my head spin after a while. Like in de Malet, the problem is that the section about the coup d'état is both the piece de resistance and the last course. Dalmål is easier from that point of view.--victor falk 23:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(Jag svarar på engelska, eftersom jag tror att det rekommenderas här att man för diskussioner på engelska så att alla kan förstå.) As I said in the deletion debate, I don't see the point of working with the current semi-nonsensical text. If you would want to translate this eventually it would probably be better to do it from scratch and at your leisure and post it again at "Dalecarlian". But it would probably be an even better idea to write a completely new article from more recent studies. As far as I know, Sweden has a well-established dialectological tradition, and there are probably hundreds of surveys and studies on various aspects of Dalecarlian that are more recent than Nordisk familjebok. Personally I wouldn't even try working with this, as I have no training in Scandinavian linguistics. But there appears to be other people around here who like to write about topics like this; both the Swedish language article and the Elfdalian article look pretty good (as far as I can tell). Are the main authors of these articles still around? Could they be prodded to write an article on Dalecarlian? Olaus (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

Hi Olaus! I saw that you had some questions about the reputed magicall talents of Ingrid Ylva. I have tried to clearify a little. You are correct, that it would be best to know, wether this was known in her own lifetime, or wether it was made up later. It was not as dramatic as it seemed at first look however. I hope that my answer was of some help to you! My best wishes!-- (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep the discussion on the talk page of the article. Olaus (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Work !![edit]

I noted your 07 April 2008 improvement on the Stig Claesson entry. Subtle correction, but it significantly improves the quality of the Wikipedia product for all of us. Keep up the sharp editing . .Raymondwinn (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's actually possible that Fogelström's novels have achieved the status of minor classics by now, but it just seemed anachronistic to refer to them as classics in that context. Olaus (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)