User talk:RicJac

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

Archive


Trying to help[edit]

Hello! Please note this change! In English, it would not be normal to refer to the Swedish government as "the State" (as in Swedish staten), and such usage can also too easily be confused with states of a union, such as Missouri or Schleswig-Holstein. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You are quite wrong on this: the State (with cap.) is the acceptable English translation for “staten” while the Government (also with cap.) is the acceptable English translation for “regeringen”. But I explain this in more detail at Talk:Monarchy of Sweden. RicJac (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lots of Swenglish[edit]

I'd like to express my sincere appreciation of the work you put into such articles as Monarchy of Sweden, where you add valuable information in considerable volume. However, your texts contain a lot of language errors, especially in word sequence and grammatical number on verbs. I'll now spend some time again on that article and correct what I find. There are programs you can run your English texts through in advance to avoid the worst problems being published. You can also write the lyrics in Swedish and then run them through "Google Translate", for example, so the grammar usually comes out right, and the other silliness, that that program comes up with, I'm sure you'll see yourself so you can fix it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I usually do use spelling checks and the like mentioned; however, it is increasingly difficult and impractical when using large amounts of wiki code. While I thank you for your attention and your technical corrections: not all of them are, as you falsely try to put it here, a matter of bad English, but rather expressions of your very own personal taste. In any case, I do deplore your indirect assertion of WP:OWN. RicJac (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to me to be obviously belligerent and uncooperative, and this was personally insulting. After having spent lots of time helping you, I will not do that ever again, but will collect all your word sequence and verb errors, which you are not interested in bettering, and will open an RfC about you eventually. Maybe then you'll take my good advice seriously and stop being condescending. My "personal taste" is good English, on English Wikipedia, and a work climate here where uncivil behavior is not tolerated at all as much as on Swedish Wikipedia, and where administrators are fair when dealing with such problems. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I assume nothing but good faith efforts from any editor. Belittling other editors with snide remarks and being none-responsive to questions asked by other editors on talk pages is not what I do. The amount of time you spend editing on Wikipedia is quite frankly not my concern, it is your business and your business alone.RicJac (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, really? Then there must be more than one person active through your user name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I’m willing to discuss content. You have a funny definition of “personal attack”, obviously you are always above reproach no matter how uncivil and condescending.RicJac (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

About you redirects[edit]

Hello RicJac. While it is great that you want to contribute to building the encyclopedia, there are some things you may want to reconsider. I noticed that you are creating new pages that function purely as redirects. Please stop doing that. Redirects should only be created when articles are merged or moved, not just to cover some different spelling in a different language. These spellings should instead be included on the page with the English name. The search engine will then find the right page anyway. Yes, there are a lot of similar redirects floating around here, but that is only because there is a backlog in removing them. I also saw that you created the page Gökhem as a redirect to Gökhem Church. Such pages and redirects are not within the policy of the English Wikipedia. I understand your thinking in creating it, I made exactly the same mistake when I was new here but was soon discouraged to do so. If you want the page to exist you should instead write a small (stub) article about the place and include that the church is situated at the locality, like in this article: Bunge (Gotland). Also make sure that what you include in the article is properly reference with reliable sources. If you are previously familiar with the Swedish Wikipedia, please bear in mind that standards are much higher here. I sometime compare them by saying that moving from SweWiki to EngWiki is like transferring from the Hemvärnet to the US Marine Corps. If you have any questions regarding editing here, do not hesitate to ask at my talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Assumption is the mother of all... I've only been editing on enwp since 2005 (before I joined svwp); in any case, I consider a snarky response like this to be an art form. RicJac (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to Skinner[edit]

For anyone interested in the topic, Skinnner's A Genealogy of the Modern State to which you gave a link is certainly worth perusing, especially in connection with the usage of terms such as "the Crown" in the course of the political, constitutional and legal history of UK and its several parts, colonies and dependencies. Who owns "state" property in any given country (UK or other) can be considered in connection with legal proceedings: in what name can actions be brought or defended? But that also depends on the particular circumstances, particular country and the context in which the question arises, and can make it difficult for a 3O resolution. But at least it is obvious that mere bluster does not deserve to be awarded the benefit of any doubt. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Always nice to get some feedback, particularly in a context where none was expected. Your'e quite right, of course, that each country has its own constitutional system and associated history, but my main point by referring to Skinner in the discussion on the talk page in question was to illustrate the usage of "State" in the English language, given that my opponent challenged that! RicJac (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and on that point, his footnote 1, of course, makes clear that he was correcting his earlier argument of 2002 when he was operating with the assumption that there is one distinctive concept of the modern state "that historians can hope to uncover". I am glad he took the trouble to produce his later findings to redress that aberration and publish for all to see, as I have now done thanks to the link. His distinguished academic career as described in the article Quentin Skinner makes it difficult (at least at first glance) to see why he fell into the trap of such an assumption from which he later rescued himself. As I see it, yours is the better side of the discussion elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned a discussion elsewhere. Would you please illuminate the cryptic meaning of this? RicJac (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Where I found the link to Skinner.[1] --Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I should have phrased that better; as I might have made an erroneous connection with the "as I have now done thanks to the link" in your previous reply, thinking that there either was or is another ongoing dispute on a talk page, other than Talk: Monarchy of Sweden, where the link might have been used in assistance to that end. RicJac (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Skinner's article is such that I feel I should clarify my comment further. Specialists in jurisprudence will be aware of the different ways in which "state" tends to be used of English institutions and derivatives in preference to other words, in comparison with similar words in other languages about the institutions of other countries. Skinner, on p. 349 et seq., shows a reason for this: the influence of Hobbes's theory upon the habits of thought of his countrymen, and the influence of translations upon Dutch and German theorists such as Pufendorf. The result is that, if and supposing "state" and "government" are or may be distinct concepts, in practice the distinction is not always admitted or scrupulously observed, nor identical in all languages or among different peoples. It is at least fairly certain that traditional usage still allows mention of "state railways" and "inter-state" highways in preference to "government" ditto, and a knowledge of the significance of "sovereign debt" has lately become indispensable. Once more, thanks for the link.Qexigator (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you wrote above and thanks again for the unexpected conversation! RicJac (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Security Advisor (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sununu (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) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)