Jump to content

User talk:Thomas.W

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Finnedi (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 12 April 2014 (→April 2014: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add new discussions at the BOTTOM of the page. Older discussions have been moved to my talk page archive.


Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WoW

Thomas, inte tänker du väl överge oss? Brukar du göra DYKs? Om ja, var snäll och titta igenom detta[1]. Det är för många Svenska referenser i det, så det verkar som ingen vågar. (Fixat redan.)

Popping up

I'm glad to see you popping up a little, at least. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Something called "real life" took over... Thomas.W talk to me 13:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of Kvenland

Only a Swede would try to insert Charles IX in an article about the Kings of Kvenland. I'll forgive you your nationalistic aspirations, but you must realize that Charles IX had nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient Kvenland.[1] Do you realize that? Finnedi (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles IX is actually the only historically accurate/verified king of Kvenland there has been, so he definitely belongs in the article. The rest of the article is just a bunch of myths and speculations... Thomas.W talk to me 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Charles was not and could not have been a King of Kvenland, because he lived centuries later and Kvenland was never a Sveas' land to begin with. Kvenland was a Finnish area that existed long before the Swedish crusades in the 13th century. Sweden has never been linked with Kvenland in any way in the Swedish history books either. You just have to accept this historical fact.Finnedi (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources? To write anything in Wikipedia, you need sources. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Charles IX was a King of Sweden (never a King of Kvenland), who lived in 1550-1611[2]. Kvenland[3]vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. Therefore Charles IX does not belong to the article about Kvenland or the one about the King of Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnedi:: The Kvenland you're POV/fringe-pushing about is just a myth since there's no historial evidence that such an entity ever existed (blogs don't count...). The name Kvenland, with a few different variations in spelling, has however been used in various contexts, one of them being the royal title used by Charles IX. So he was undoubtedly "King of Kvenland". Thomas.W talk to me 15:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, take a deep breath before you continue. Kvenland is mentioned in several norse sagas and history books later. Charles IX was never a King of Kvenland nor did he himself or any historian ever claim that he was. You are the first person who does that. Even linking Charles IX with Kvenland is absurd because he lived in the 16th century and Kvenland had disappeared from written accounts by the 14th century. The thing that Charles IX may have used the title "King of Caijaners etc.", never made and still does not make him a King of Kvenland, nor was he ever associated in any way with the area that was known Kvenland. If you want to connect Charles IX to Caijaners, why don't you add the info in the article about Charles IX himself?Finnedi (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnedi:: 1) The Norse sagas are sagas and what's written in them can not be taken at face value, unless it's supported by historical documents or archaeological evidence. And AFAIK no historical documents or archaeological evidence support the existence of a political entity named Kvenland, let alone the existence of kings of such an entity. The existence of a political entity named Kvenland is just a myth. 2) I'm not the one who added Charles IX, but since the claim that he used the title "King of Kvenland" seems to be properly sourced you can not remove it unless you discuss it on the talk page of the article and get consensus for such removal. Period. Thomas.W talk to me 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, I'm not interested in arguing with you about Kvenland, the area. The problem is that you want to include Charles IX in two articles where he does not belong. Charles never ever used the title KING OF KVENLAND of himself. Nor did any historian ever do that. I already explained you why it wouldn't have been possible in the first place. Such unhistorical absurd interpretations are not needed in these articles.Finnedi (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnedi:, I have started sections on the talk page of both articles repeating what you have been told all along, that the section is referenced and describes something scholars have raised in this connection, and that no one is claiming it was still called Kvenland in the 16th/17th century. Despite your edit summaries, you have not acquired consensus for removing this referenced material; you have simply said repeatedly that you disagree with it, and I see you here impute nationalistic motives to Thomas.W for disagreeing with its removal. Please make your case where it belongs, on the article talk pages. But so far you - and an IP that was probably you? are the only person/people arguing for its removal, and since it's referenced, your argument is not persuasive, to me at least (and is not improved by the assumption of bad faith. Take it to the article talk pages please. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir:The reference to Charles IX does not belong in the articles about Kvenland or the King of Kvenland, because Charles IX has never been connected with Kvenland in any way by any known historian. If you dispute this fact, you must present source material that says the opposite and can be verified by myself and others. Can you present such source material?Finnedi (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

category reverts

Hi - I just wanted to let you know that I've re-reverted some of your recent reversions of User:59.101.85.1. I believe they were constructive, even though they appeared suspicious. Please see my comment on that IP's talk page for details, and please let me know if you think I'm in error. Thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Finnedi has opened a section at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but s/he had misspelled your user name so here is a manual notification: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Kvenland. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for reverting my user page. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Information icon Please do not remove sourced content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rus'_people, Kvenland and King of Kvenland without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Caution for removing sourced content with a misleading edit summary that incorrectly claimed the matter hasn't been discussed. You disliking it is no reason for removing it.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to revert portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Rus' people, Kvenland and King of Kvenland, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Warning for reverting the sourced content on Rus'_people, Kvenland and King of Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.emersonkent.com/images/maps/europe_814.jpg
  2. ^ http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107208/Charles-IX
  3. ^ http://www.davidkfaux.org/files/deBeaufouFullReport.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas.W&oldid=603892972"