User talk:Wiglaf: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:11, 29 June 2006

Template:Wigarch

You can leave a message below

Furby, Sweden

Have you heard of this place? Are the article statements true? See also talk page. Regards, Fred-Chess 12:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. To comply, I did this [1] :-) // Fred-Chess 23:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German 4th Panzer Division

I believe that and that's exactly why I assumed her good faith. However, I happened to read a lot on the topic, including one of the sources quoted by Szopen (not Molobo!). That's why I got invoilved in the article (note that I did that before Shauri's unexplained reverts took place). Of course, this list of attrocities is only fragmentary as it is based on a book listing war crimes against Polish soldiers of 1939. It does not mention civillians or soldiers of other armies murdered by that division after 1939, which were also many.

Anyway, as I happen to know a tad on the topic, it would take a lot more than a simple uncommented revert to convince me that something is wrong with the facts quoted there. And that's exactly why I asked Shauri to quote her sources and explain her problems. Hope she'll respond shortly. Halibu tt 16:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I noticed that at Shauri's talk page you assumed some strange things after seing the graphics used on this page. If you want me to, I could translate it for you. It's quite a decent essay on what the German soldiers were supposed to be and how many of them threw the rules of civility out of the window. It's not 100% objective since it does not mention German soldiers trying to prevent their colleagues from behaving like beasts (well, only once), but still it's quite interesting - and well-sourced. And the sense of graphical taste of the author of that page is a completely different thing :) Halibu tt 15:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Shauri's page:

Yeah, the revert war stopped when I said that the only solution to his incommunicative behaviour was to revert him on sight.--Wiglaf 14:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted him on sight anyway, so I doubt it was a factor here. In fact the revert war stopped when people joined the talk page (check the history) - and that's exactly how it should be. Halibu tt 15:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hello Wiglaf, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I am happy to have some new tools to help fight vandals, and I hope to be able to use them to the betterment of the community. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tack

Thanks for nominating me for adminship and supporting me till the end. And, while I'm at it, thanks for everything else too :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help would be much appreciated:

Can you tell this user (talk) that he cannot delete other people's posts, (something I'm sure about after you told me). He continues to revert my posts, over a trivial issue which he caused. I simply pointed this out to him, & obviously being slightly embarrassed, reverted my edits. Could you please inform him that this is not allowed? Regards, Spawn Man 01:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hopefully been cleared, hopefully..... Spawn Man 01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa massacre

I see you wrote the article about Odessa massacre. I would like to know your sources. --Vasile 14:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, Wiglaf. I completely understand.

You encountered an example of the exact reason why I have very little WikiFaith: an article written at Wikipedia can be developed to a very high level of quality, but it can still be screwed up by the ignorant and/or those who do nothing but push a particular personal agenda. You did your best, and that is what counts.

I will find you soon via e-mail. There is a project being developed here that may interest you more than what is being done at Wikipedia, but which will serve many of the same purposes. ;)

-P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break too - can I be in on the secret? :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back!

For services above and beyond the call of a mere admin, I award Wiglaf this medal--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back my friend, to the show that never ends. We've missed you.

Yay, me too. --HappyCamper 02:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think your friend will be coming back soon? --HappyCamper 03:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shauri

Thanks for your messages. I'm delighted to hear that she's well and will be coming back. Wikipedia can't afford to lose people like her. Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiglaf, thank you for your reassuring message! I second Ann Heneghan's words. Take care. SoLando (Talk) 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind message. I'm glad to know Shauri will soon be with us again. Best wishes, Sango 123 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I just got a whole plate of cookies from Bratsche so I think I can give you one as repayment. :-D I'm also glad to hear that Shauri will be returning soon. It really is a wonderful surprise when you meet those wikipedians who are polite, and helpful even when they don't know you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 21:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. It's nice to know Shauri will be back. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 22:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how are things?

hey Wiglaf -- your talk page looks a little bit disheartening; I see you have been involved in some wikiunpleasantries.... anyway, I am back on the prowl (although I think I have to prune my watchlist a little bit), it would be nice to see you around. dab (ᛏ) 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear. at least, if his stay was limited to a week (touch wood), it was only a temporary affliction, I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 22:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocking Weirdness

Wiglaf, if I may call upon your intellect and admin prowess, Ansbachdragoner seems to have been the victim of some weirdness involving Sockpuppetry, IP masking and other assorted Scheiße. His account may have been compromised. I'm not even sure if the one who posted on his talk page is really him. Please see if you can help sort out this mess. If anyone can, you can, my friend! Best to you --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr's support of breakers of 3RR

On 18:19, 15 November 2005, you have blocked User:Molobo with the description 3RR, without leaving any information of his user page (as required by the blocking policy). In addition, Molobo contributions in the past 24h have only one page edited more then one, this being Talk:Germanisation, which shows no sign of reverting. Please explain to me your actions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing my duty Piotrus. I wonder why you had not done it, but you are always unilaterally supportive of his actions. As for notifying him, I forgot about it, since I knew that he was extremely well aware of the situation, and I did leave a message on the 3RR page, which you probably knew. Since, you have unilaterally unblocked him, I will block him once more.--Wiglaf 07:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I have the highest respect for you and your work. I've expressed this numerous times on FAC. So it baffles me why someone of such intellect and ability would come to the support of a serial POV pusher like Molobo. JUST LOOK AT HIS TALK PAGE AND EDIT HISTORY! He clearly has an agenda, which he seeks to aggressively pursue, and facts or the opinions of others be damned! All he knows is right and wrong...he's right and all who disagree are wrong. He's wasted vast amounts of valuable time and effort of those who have been busy repairing his biased, twisted edits and argueing with him over them. He is clearly 1) A liability to Wikipedia and 2) Cannot be reasoned with in any meaningful way. His greatest talent is his ability to just stay within the lines and not cross over to being a flat out troll or abuser. If anything, you, as a true intellectual, scholar and gentleman, should be finding common cause with Wiglaf, instead of defending someone who contributes to Wikipedia about as much as Willy on Wheels. In fact I'd say he's worse..how many good contributors have been driven away in frustration by dealing with Molobo...I can think of at least four off hand and one I'm not sure will ever return. I can only assume that you, in some way, must agree with his Poloncentric PoV. Best regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi Wiglaf, see here -- I would encourage you to seek wider support in Piotrus/Molobo related cases in the future; I tend to agree with RDH's take, it is undignified of an admin to support an obvious troll just because he happens to share the gist of his opinions. If Molobo is really as bad as RDH says (I haven't followed the case), it may be time for an RFAr to rid WP of this liability once and for all. We are here to work on articles, after all, and not to play mind games. If you manage to get Jimbo's attention, which I think would be adequate if it is true that four good editors have left in frustration over Molobo, I do think that if I know anything about Jimbo's view of what is acceptable on Wikipedia, he will permaban him without much ado. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Molobo is worse than that. It took a concerted effort of all Russian editors to suspend his odious attacks on Russian articles last week. See my urgent announcements here and here. I suspect him of using a variety of sockpuppets to impersonate me (e.g., User:Ярославль). For several days I couldn't contribute a single new article, trying to fend off Molobo's attacks. Please block and ban him. --Ghirlandajo 10:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiglaf, I'd like to apologise to you for my accusation - in this case you did not abuse your rights and were completly justified in blocking Molobo for his reverts on Talk:Zygmunt Bauman. However, while I don't support all of Molobo's actions, I don't think he is a vandal or pro-Polish troll. The case of German_4th_Panzer_Division should be enough to show you that he is - sometimes - right, and you are - sometimes - wrong. As I wrote again, I think that it should be possible for both you and Molobo to reach some kind of NPOV consensus. Otherwise I am afraid we have no choice but to take this to ask for comments/mediation/arbitration, and we should both hope that others, completly not involved with Polish-German content dispute, will be able to judge this more fairly then we can. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in an editing dispute, at the time, as you can see if you bother to check my edit history. I only did my duty as admin.--Wiglaf 18:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre de Montaigu Seal.gif

I present you with the sigillum militum uicipaediae, Sir Wiglaf, for your knightly services in protecting the innocent pilgrims in search of knowledge and information from trolls and highwaymen.

well, if Molobo is really so bad, we should rfar him and get him permabanned, I suppose. Has anyone collected evidence so far? Thank you for putting up with all this unpleasant business, Wiglaf, you are making a difference, so good editors can work in peace. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hm, it would be strange for me to file an rfar without even ever having encountered him. Of course, I could review the evidence and file one 'on behalf of the community' or something, but then I'd need a lot of support. is there some easily accessible evidence to all this? We could draft this and see how much support we get. So far I am really taking people's word that he is really that bad, I have no first-hand experience. Btw, I just noticed we didn't have Franks Casket, that's a disgrace :( I'll try to hack a stub together at least. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JRRT

I'm trying to get JRRT to FA level, but I may not really make it with all the objections. Maye you feel like helping out here or there? regards, dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Excuse me..? I think I must've got you wrong apparently. Did you just explain that you're voting against my nomination for adminship because you came late for RfA of the person to nominate me and you simply had to oppose somewhere? Or is it that you believe we're actually one person? I believe I must be missing something here... Halibutt 09:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why so aggresive

If you believe I am wrong I will gladly provide you with sources and reference. Why do you so strongly attack me ? --Molobo 13:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out any insults or vulgar words that I use towards other people, I will be glad to delete them and apologise. As to your comment about my opinions-I don't present them in the articles.What did you mean by that, do you still dispute the war crimes sections of the German units of the dispute you were involved with me ? If so I will be gladly of assistance as Datner's book is in my possesion as of now. --Molobo 14:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

' If you should be banned from Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with your opinions, but with you way you get along with people' Wiglaf before accusing me of such things, you should consider your behaviour as well-block without reason and violations of Wiki policy, continous usage of slander terms towards me, reverting on sight of confirmed information. I never called you names(troll for example). I am awfully sorry, but to me your reaction seems more a result of your attempts to protect German units from mentioning their war crimes-after all it was this incident that provoked your responce to me. I hope that we can get along. --Molobo 14:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you try to portray me as an ideological adversary. Thank you for confirming the necessity of the RfAr.--Wiglaf 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

' So you try to portray me as an ideological adversary. Thank you for confirming the necessity of the RfAr.' No I do not, what I am saying your hostile reaction started with dispute over this articles, and thats why I said that I only know from the dispute over this articles. Like I said If I am wrong, I am ready to apologise. I will be glad to know what do you have against me-I am certainly willing to correct anything that you consider insulting or discussing information you consider to be wrong. However I did not portay you as an ideological adversary, rather pointed out the origins of the conflict, I also hope you can engage in discussion over issues that you have with me, and please use less provocative statements if you can. It seems you are very emotional about me. Why ? And please finally state the issues you have with me so that we can come to agreement. Right now I don't know what you are accusing me of. --Molobo 14:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Molobo, I am rather the antithesis of emotional regarding you. My issue with you is on the contrary my care about other people and their well-being on Wikipedia for the betterment of this encyclopedia. Just to mention one example, you appear to fail to keep your promises, such as the promise to Shauri that you would apologize to her for your attack with guilt by association. The discussion about your RfAr will be about how many people, if any, are possibly unhappy with your presence here.--Wiglaf 15:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'you appear to fail to keep your promises, such as the promise to Shauri that you would apologize to her for your attack with guilt by association'

Wiglaf -my proposition stands towards Shauri, and if she confirms that I judged her wrongly and she didn't support opinions of that other user I will apologize to her right away.However I didn't get Shauri's responce on that. As to other promises please point me to them.As you see I am ready to engage in discussion with people offended and apologize if allegations are true.Are there any other issues you want to discuss ? Or was the conflict with Shauri the only thing you are complaining about ? I will gladly address any issue you want to discuss. --Molobo 15:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for Shauri it does not hurt to be a man and apologize for any possible misunderstandings, without waiting for her request. You should also relax because your likely RfAr is only a way of judging your good standing in the community, since some people have questioned it.--Wiglaf 15:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'As for Shauri it does not hurt to be a man and apologize for any possible misunderstandings, without waiting for her request' I am not waiting for her request, but confirmation that I was wrong as to her position on statements of other user.If I was wrong then I will apologize. --Molobo 15:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Molobo for stating your position (which was the one I expected from you). I hope to see you at the RfAr, soon.--Wiglaf 15:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm if you expected me to engage in discussion why then the complaints ? I already gave Shauri notice about the apology. So are they any other issues you wish to discuss with me ? As I said-I always willing to engage in talk if its necessery. However why do you refuse to engage in discussion ? I still don't know what exactly are you accusing me of.

--Molobo 15:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as to Wiki policy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution 'The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies. For additional ideas, see Wikipedia:Negotiation.'

So Wiglaf please engage in talk,like I said I am ready to talk about your concerns.What article or issue do you want to discuss ? --Molobo 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a period of edit war...

This Star Wars parody, which I noticed via your userpage, is the funniest thing I've seen in a long while - thanks for spreading it :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template creep

have you come across {{foreignchar}}? I don't know whether to chuckle or to weep. It's surprising they didn't name it {{foreignsquiggle}} :) dab (ᛏ) 09:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a move from "our" side of the aisle, so to speak. We had hoped this could appease the anti-squiggle people - but it doesn't seem to have been successful in that respect. The name is not ideal, I agree. We've been discussing that, among other things, on the template's talk page. Your opinion would be valued there. Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention vote

I hope you've recovered from the recent unpleasantness. That naming convention thing is now up for a vote. I half regret having started a vote to begin with since it will bring in people who don't know much about the issue but since we're there already I'll try to see this through to the end. Your comment would be appreciated. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt's RfA

I myself oppose Halibutt becoming an admin, but your reason I find really... hm, disturbing?. What does a nominator has to do with the nominee? I could even understand the reasons behind editcountitis or editsummaritis (when people oppose due to lack of edit summaries), because these are the actual traits of the nominee. But nominator? I am just baffled. Renata3 15:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt's RfA

I think you did the right thing over at Halibutt's RfA. Takes a strong character to change one's vote in the way you did. Halibutt's not perfect but he's no Molobo either :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it took not only character but courage. Both qualities you posses in abundance, my friend. Cheers, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help on uploading an image

Hi, Wiglaf. Long time no see.

I'm the author of the Yellow River (Iowa) article. This absolutely copyright free US National Park Service site] has a gorgeous map of this river. The problem is that I do not know how to upload it into Wiki. I once before found the help pages on how to make an upload, but this bombed. --FourthAve 19:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and the history thereof, particularly the place where I beautifully introduced columns into the article and left a history note about adjusting the place of Intercourse. It's rare that you can be literally correct in such a context, and I'm all over myself over it. For the context, it's David G. Ludwig --FourthAve 07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi, Wiglaf. I just want to thank you for your support for my RfA. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. And thanks again for keeping me informed some time ago that Shauri was well and that she'd be coming back. AnnH ^(talk) 19:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Níðhöggr

Hi, Wiglaf.

Could you check Níðhöggr for me? User:Jonathunder moved the page to Nidhogg and made edits to the redirect page so I can't move it back. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a swift response. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

varangians

Please take a look at recent developments of a certain anon under accounts user:213.216.199.2 and user: 213.216.199.10 in Varangian and Cwen.

I admit I am not an expert, but I still find it strange that I have never ever read about this before. What is it? a new theory? An elaborate hoax? This anon removed the tag of user:Foofy ("not verified"), but didn't provide any sources or ext links. This makes me extremely suspicious. mikka (t) 18:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This anon is some kind of Finnish nationalist who adds all kinds of garbage to articles on Swedish and Finnish history, and has been doing so for a while. I just reverted some stuff added to Lars Levi Læstadius, and he has also edited articles like Jacob De la Gardie, who is now included in Category:Finnish Field Marshals, in spite of the fact that Finland didn't exist at the time except as a part of Sweden and certainly didn't appoint its own field marshals. I just don't have the energy to follow this anon around correcting/reverting his edits (to articles which in some cases are so crappy that it would be better if they were simply deleted and rewritten from scratch at some later point). I am also afraid I will be regarded as some kind of Swedish chauvinist if I do. Tupsharru 22:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second your opinions on this matter. --Ghirlandajo 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odin

hi Wiglaf. I see you decided to show your face to the public? -- that's something I was tempted to do, for the community, but all the trolls and hostility made me decide that it would be too personal. How is your wikistress level, then?

Anyway, some help on Talk:Odin, please? I spent half a day water-proofing the etymology section now, but I'm not sure the problem is solved. regards, dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's not so urgent now, it seems our trained historian (who seems to be a very good editor, otherwise, too) has turned to other matters. dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, after this, I may need some backup after all. dab (ᛏ) 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhos

Check these ludicrous additions by anon. --Ghirlandajo 16:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Runestone

Hi, Wiglaf,

Just out of curiosity, what's your take on the Kensington Runestone, with which you probably are familiar?

I ask because I grew up in Minnesota. Tragically, I am not of Swedish descent.

Sca 20:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Kensington stone is a fake, period. --FourthAve 04:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German noticeboard

Is there one? I cannot find anything at Wikipedia:Regional notice boards. A place to leave a message for many German editors would be quite useful - for example, to discuss stuff like this. At the moment the only thing I can do is ask several German native speakers I know from various edits, like you, Olessi or Chris - but it's not really very useful. Having one place for such notices would be much better. What do you think? In other news: you may want to use Wikipedia:Babel - it's a pretty useful tool for lanaguage reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:) This is why I mentioned Babel: if you use it, then there will be no mistakes like that. But I assume you know German?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"..oh Lord, deliver us from the fury of the Wægmundings..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiglaf1.jpg

U.S. Army?!?! ::laughing::

Good picture of you, Wiglaf. We could have used more fellows like you when I was in the U.S. Army years ago.

I suppose this means that Haukur, Dieter, and I have to upload our own pictures too, eh? ;)

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-). It is my brother's US Army uniform. He serves as a sergeant and legal councelor in Germany, ATM. It's nice to have a uniform with my surname on it ;-).--Wiglaf 13:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the map

And to let you know. I used your Old-norse-map 900 as a base to illustrate my german North-sea-article. -- 84.141.165.6 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Info

This may interest you. Alx-pl D 20:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo

Hi. Just in case you missed it and are interested, there is an ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stora Sofia

Could you help me out, please? I wrote this article based on the Swedish source given, but since I don't speak Swedish at all, I'd appreciate it if you could check that I didn't miss or misunderstand anything. Thanks! Lupo 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: Torstenson War claims the Treaty of Brömsebro was signed on February 8, 1645, but the latter article says it was concluded on August 13 of that year! Freden i Brömsebro seems to discuss both dates, but there I'm lost completely. Could you see to it that our two articles explain the discrepancy somehow? Thanks again. Lupo 10:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radhanite

I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and vote page are here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious runestone

Wiglaf, a belated reply to your comment on the Kensington runestone: Does it not seem unlikely that some old farmer in northern Minnesota (which is not good farming country) would be erudite enough to carve runes that would appear to at least some knowledgeable people to be authentic or possibly authentic? Understand, it doesn't matter to me whether the Vikings reached Minn. or not -- I just think it's an interesting puzzle. Sca 16:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is intriguing, but unfortunately I think that we will never know 100% whether it is a fake or not.--Wiglaf 10:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ledbergsstenen_20041231.jpg

Hello. I noticed that Image:Ledbergsstenen_20041231.jpg, which you uploaded, has been tagged as an unsourced image and removed from the Viking and Rune stone articles. Can you provide source and licensing information, before it is deleted? Thanks. —Slicing (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved; image had been incorrectly tagged as {{nosource}} by an inexperienced user who didn't read what you had written. I've now supplied a link to sv: and the GFDL tag. Lupo 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danelaw

God jul.
I have just come across a note you put into Danelaw in June:

<-- bringing with them a culture and a tradition markedly different from that of the prevalent Anglo-Saxon society (comment: this is the first time I have ever heard of such a vast difference. Both cultures were Germanic and the Anglo-Saxon had its origins in Denmark, Holland and Northern Germany, so it sounds quite POV)-->.

You are clearly well-informed on matters linguistic and ethnographical in this area so I ask for the sake of my enlightenment. My understanding is that the English who moved into Britain from the peninsula which became part of Denmark did so three or four hundred years before some of the Danes followed them into England. They therefore had time to develop their culture along different lines from those followed by those who remained in the old country. This will have arisen partly from the mixed nature of the settlement in England. The Frisians, Romano-Britons, Irish and Saxons all contributed to the English culture of the late ninth century. Beyond this, when the Jutes and Angles left the continental lands, the Danes still lived in what became southern Sweden and the Danish islands. It is likely that the Angles moved out because the Danes effectively pushed them out. In other words it is not safe to assume that even at the outset, the Anglian culture was the same as the Danish. In my understanding, linguistically even, they were of separate, though both Germanic, groups: low German and Scandinavian.

Please let me know how far and in what respects my understanding is at fault. (RJP 12:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Farewell...

Darn, I just hate to see a good contributor vanishing. Who's gonna clear up that Treaty of Brömsebro now? You will be missed. Anyhow, I wish you a happy new year! Lupo 19:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are missed. Look:

Nog finns det mål och mening i vår färd -

men det är vägen, som är mödan värd.

Karin Boye, I rörelse

alx-pl D 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooooooo don't go! You were one of the best contributors to Wikipedia! You were the glue that held together the...ah, who am I kidding? The dream is over. Wikipedia is in the Dark Ages now: as they probably would say in French, sans Wiglaf. *sniff* - THE GREAT GAVINI 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sad. One finds good contributions in an article, looks up the editor - and he has left Wikipedia. It is even more sad the aggressive POV-pushers stay. --Matthead 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerbread

I see that you removed information from gingerbread, stating rm two notable cakes that have very little to do with gingerbread. First, gingerbread and pain d'épices are often seen as translations of each other in dictionaries, so they must be somewhat related.

But, more importantly, you should not have removed information from Wikipedia like that. If you think that some information in some article is about "notable" things unrelated to the topic of the article, you should start a stub article, for instance. David.Monniaux 10:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

!%^&*

What the heck is going on here!!! Everyone I need is leaving! You & Shauri are desperately needed on here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't go!!!!!!!!!!!! Spawn Man 04:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Why are you leaving? Don't leave... Gryffindor 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

~~Question~~Good Bye

Wiglaf, I come to ask you a question, and now it says you are gone?! Well Wikipedia is perhaps too good for academics due to the mass of POV-pushers and vandals. But I hope you will remember the fine aspects of Wikipedia, and not be caught up in memories of edit wars, etc. Especially since you were hardly innocent in them all (bash me back on my talk page).

Well anyways, thanks for all the contributions that enlighten our understand of the Scandinavian history.

Fred-Chess 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hundingsbane.jpg

Copyright for art is usually considered to be life of the author plus 100 years, making this not within the public domain. Image:Hundingsbane.jpg. Please check it out and see if any other license would be applicable. Thanks :D - cohesion★talk 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, {{PD-art}} clearly doesn't apply, but {{PD-US}} does. I've dealt with it. Lupo 08:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Eymund's stone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eymund's stone.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. -- Longhair 10:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:1102569922wiglaf.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1102569922wiglaf.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 07:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greensted Church

Would you have a reference that Greensted Church is often classified as a stave church? I can find no mention of it as a stave church, but my resources are somewhat limited. Thanks - Williamborg 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion transfered from Williamborg talk page

I found a question on User talk:Wiglafs discussion page about this church, added by you. The correct reading of "and it is often classified as a stave church" is more like "and the palisade walls are often classified as remnants of a stave church". This to is wrong if you use a Norwegian description of a stave church. It is although right if you use a Swedish definition of a stave church.

The background is, in Sweden a stave church is a church with standing planks in the wall while in Norway a stave church is specific construction with standing staves (pillars) on top of a wooden frame. Sometimes scholars in Sweden uses risverkskyrka to avoid the confusion. In all there are three different constructions, probably with a lot of transitional forms. A palisade construction, a construction with earth bound posts and a construction with posts on top of a wooden frame. To make the situation even more unclear a palisade construction can be partly lifted from the ground and set on a wooden frame.

Especially churches with earth bound posts can be easily spotted during an archaeological survey and a palisade construction were all or parts of the walls are set in gravel. Such buildings are detected all over Europe, and according to Leif Anker "Europe are covered in post holes from Italy to Norway". As he says, "it is more interesting to investigate why the stave churches survived in Norway then to try to see them as a Norwegian-only phenomenon".

— John Erling Blad (no) 10:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent discussion. Might I suggest it be added to the Greensted Church and stave church pages? Williamborg 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Countship" (sic)

User:Fastifex is rapidly changing "county" to "countship", i.e. County of Foix, at every appearance. This strikes me as a particularly foolish Wikipedianism. What do you think? --Wetman 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Early Swedish History

Hi Wiglaf, even though your userpage has a bit of saddening glow about it, I still want to ask you too check out this timeline I added to Prehistoric Sweden: Template:Timeline of Prehistoric Sweden. There is some work that needs to be done, like adding the continental culture epoch system (X culture, Y culture...) by Paul Reinecke for comparison. Nixdorf 13:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Cimbrians and Teutons.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cimbrians and Teutons.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Resolved. Lupo 08:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Resta_stenar_stor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Resta_stenar_stor.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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 03:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Resolved. Lupo 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Klarälven, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

There must have gone something very wrong. That article was created in 2004! Lupo 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dansruntstången.JPG)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dansruntstången.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a personal pic, not useful for the encyclopedia. I won't do anything with this one, although you should note that he said "my own pic", and thus it is technically {{GFDL-self}} (or, since Wiglaf isn't around anymore :-((, {{GFDL-presumed}}). Lupo 07:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging

Greetings. From the description and use of Image:Vaksalastenen.jpg, it appears you intended this media to be freely available. I took the liberty of applying a {{GFDL-presumed}} tag. Could you confirm this at by replacing my edit with {{GFDL-self}}? Regards, Dethomas 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is on commons, with the same name. See there for the license, or it could be deleted here. Lupo 13:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Intermediaryrunes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Intermediaryrunes.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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No action necessary. The image exists on the commons, albeit under a different name. But it isn't used here on en: anyway. Lupo 13:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ingeborg2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ingeborg2.gif. 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) 14:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ingeborg.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ingeborg.gif. 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) 14:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Royal_mounds.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Royal_mounds.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone again

Wikipedia sucks, Wiglaf. I'm gone too. Find me again as "Allamakee Democrat" on other wikipedias. --FourthAve 08:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sigmund.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sigmund.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Prettiness_incarnate.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Prettiness_incarnate.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Beakerculture.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Beakerculture.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Hi! There seems to be a loop here between de:wikipedia, en:wikipedia and the commons each claiming that this image came from the other. JeremyA 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The elusive Wiglaf

You do exist then. I just saw a post on the Sweden page with your autograph, brand new too. Wow. It's a good thing one can still type while speechless. I've been seeing your tracks here, from way back, deep too, like footsteps in loose snow by a heavyweight, but long gone. You seem to have just up and left and let everything snow in, or snow over, or slide downhill, or whatever things do when hell freezes over. ;) I'm so glad you are active again. You created some great, great stuff way back, and now you are, uhm, like 360 or so days older and wiser, so whatever you create has the promise of being totally fabulous. Or something like it. Best, Pia 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC) PS. Hope this means that you will be around to help straighten out knots of confusion in your fields of expertise, every now and again? Just checking.[reply]

Revision as of 03:32, 29 June 2006 edit Pia L (talk \| contribs) 1,274 edits The elusive Wiglaf ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:11, 29 June 2006 edit undo Pia L (talk \| contribs) 1,274 edits m →The elusive Wiglaf: added a PS Next edit →
Line 506:		Line 506:
	== The elusive Wiglaf ==		== The elusive Wiglaf ==

	You do exist then. I just saw a post on the Sweden page with your autograph, brand new too. Wow. It's a good thing one can still type while speechless. I've been seeing your tracks here, from way back, deep too, like footsteps in loose snow by a heavyweight, but long gone. You seem to have just up and left and let everything to snow in, or slide downhill, or whatever things do when hell freezes over. ;) I'm so glad you are active again. You created some great, great stuff way back, and now you are, uhm, like 360 or so days older and wiser, so whatever you create has the promise of being totally fabulous. Or something like it. Best, [[User:Pia L\|Pia]] 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)		You do exist then. I just saw a post on the [[Sweden]] page with your autograph, brand new too. Wow. It's a good thing one can still type while speechless. I've been seeing your tracks here, from way back, deep too, like footsteps in loose snow by a heavyweight, but long gone. You seem to have just up and left and let everything snow in, or snow over, or slide downhill, or whatever things do when hell freezes over. ;) I'm so glad you are active again. You created some great, great stuff way back, and now you are, uhm, like 360 or so days older and wiser, so whatever you create has the promise of being totally fabulous. Or something like it. Best, [[User:Pia L\|Pia]] 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC) PS. Hope this means that you will be around to help straighten out knots of confusion in your fields of expertise, every now and again? Just checking.