User talk:Comanche cph

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Comanche cph, 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:Questions, 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! /wangi 13:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Danevirke2.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Danevirke2.gif. 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 {{Non-free fair use in|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. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orkneyinga saga

Excuse me, but the problem was you were plagarising from another website - Wikipedia's is a free encyclopedia, and in order to be that it has to have a licence to use all content within it.

I've added a "welcome" section to the top of this page with pointers to some pages about Wikipedia. Thanks/wangi 13:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, i will go and have a look to that. :o). I´ve just trouth that you deleted it because you did´t wanted to see the bad side of it. As it mess up, proved sources of the viking history.

Btw. Do you know how to create a new article? I only know how to Edit them. --Comanche cph 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:YFA (Your First Article) explains that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to say that too! and at the bottom on that article there's a link to a page that goes through the mechanics of it all/wangi 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again :o). --Comanche cph 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate articles are not allowed

Please do not make duplicate articles. As you can see, List of Danish monarchs already exists. You are welcome to add information to that one (if you specify that the legendary kings are exactly that) but duplicate articles are not allowed on Wikipedia. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did´t saw that article. Where was it hidden? You should put a link to it on the top in "History of Denmark" --Comanche cph 21:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Sign your comments

Dear Wikipedian, please sign your comments on talkpages using four (4) tildes(~). regards Angelbo 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry. sometimes i forget it. --Comanche cph 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking ring castles / fortresses

Hej Comanche.

En borg kan også godt være af træ, men jeg ved ikke om nogle andre brugere, der ved noget om dette emne? Jeg ved noget om historie men ikke om arkitektur. Under alle omstændigheder, så er det enten Viking ring castles eller Viking ring fortresses for at overholde alm. engelsk stavning. I det irske materiale bruger de Ringforts men de er af en anden type.

Men det er et godt spørgsmål. Som jeg ser det kan de begge to være korrekte, men måske er "fortresses" en lille smule mere korrekt. Viking ring forts er også en mulighed. Jeg kiggede lige i Penguins Historian Atlas of the Vikings. Den taler om "round forts", dvs. Viking round forts. Aggersborgs og Fyrkats hjemmesider - der ikke er specielt gode - taler kun om Viking fortresses. Så jeg er i tvivl. Vi er næsten nødt til at få "ring" eller "round" ind i navnet for der findes også nogle andre vikingetidsfæstninger på Gotland og ved det nuværende Stockholm. Dannevirke hører heller ikke hjemme i denne liste. Når alt kommer til alt ville jeg nok sætte mine penge på Viking ring forts.

Hvis du føler for sagen, så kan du liste artiklen på WP:RM (=Requested moves) og foreslå den flyttet. Så kan nogle flere få lejlighed til at blande sig i debatten. Men det vil nok være en god idé at starte med en besked til Wikipedia talk:Danish Wikipedians' notice board. Det kan jo være at en af de andre brugere ved noget om emnet.

Noget helt andet: gør dig selv en tjeneste og husk at "underskrive" med ~~~~ (altså 4x tilde-tegnet. Du får det frem ved at trykke AltGr samtidigt med tasten til venstre for Å). Så kommer både "underskrift" og tidsstempel med. Hilsen Valentinian ^(talk) 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Når jeg tænker på et Castle, tænker jeg på et stort slot med tårne. Men er ikke helt sikker på ordet.

Du har ret i at "Fort" også kunne bruges. Det er måske mere rigtigt endda. Mit engelske er ikke lige det bedste, men jeg mener at "fortress" også kan betyde små skyttegrave. Så "Fort" ville måske være bedre?

Men på den anden side når jeg tænker på et "Fort", sammeligner jeg det med Flakfortet og den der gamle tv-serie Fangerne på fortet :oD. Altså fæstning ude på vandet.

Ved ikke hvad der er mest rigtigt.

Vi skal også huske at Trellebogene også blev brugt til beboelse.

Jeg kom til at lave en artikel "Trelleborg", inden jeg jeg så at der var lavet en. Men ved ikke hvordan man sletter den igen, hehe. --Comanche cph 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Den del er til gengæld rimeligt enkel. Først kopierer du materialet det drejer sig over i den længst-levende artikel (det er alm. høflighed) og retter materialet til, så artiklen ser ordentlig ud. Derefter fjerner du indholdet af hele den artikel, der skal slettes (her går jeg ud fra det er den nye) og skriver i stedet:

#REDIRECT[[Viking ring castles]]

og trykker "save". Så er den i orden.

Noget helt andet, har du selv tegnet det billede du har uploadet? Hvis det er tegnet af andre, så hedder den korrekte licens (i dette tilfælde):

Det er fair nok hvis du har taget det fra en anden hjemmeside, så skal du bare angive den korrekte licens. --Valentinian ^(talk) 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nej det var et jeg fandt på en side. Jeg skrev en mail til dem at jeg havde brugt deres billede, men de har ikke svaret, så jeg vil tro at det er ok.

Jeg googlede lige lidt på trelleborg og fandt billeder, de er måske bedre.

http://www.geocities.com/henrik2405hsj/billederfradanmark.html

De her er ret flot lavet.

--Comanche cph 13:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeg kan godt se din vinkel, men Wikipedias regler siger at vi skal have en positiv tilladelse hver gang (dvs. en mail hvor der står: "det må du godt.") Men hvis du vil bruge f.eks 1 enkelt eller måske 2 billeder i en artikel for at illustrere et eller andet (fx et diagram eller en skitse, der kun findes i 1 kopi) så brug {{fairusein|artiklens navn}} hvis du er bare det mindste i tvivl. PS: vedr. det rod med Rollo eller hvad han hed, så siger Wikipedias NPOV politik at man skal skrive begge teorier og gøre opmærksom på at emnet er kontroversielt. Så må læseren selv danne sig sit eget indtryk. Jeg vil anbefale at I gør sådan for at få lukket det her problem. Vi har desværre ikke ret mange oplysninger fra Vikingetiden, der er 100% sikre. Det meste er rekonstruktioner og i nogen tilfælde rent gætværk skrevet langt efter begivenhederne fandt sted. Det gælder også Saxo og mange af hans kolleger. Store Danske Encyklopædi skriver kort at Rollos nationalitet er et omdiskuteret spørgsmål. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeg har hvist ikke særlig godt styr på alle de regler :o).

Jeg synes nu ellers den der Rollo diskussion er meget underholdene :oD. Men jeg har hele tiden været enig med at begge teorier skal nævnes, og Hrolf Ganger ikke skal bruges på andre omhandlene artikler om Normandiet, da det er misvisende og kun vedrører den ene teori. --Comanche cph 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Inge 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t attack personal. This is a fake warning. --Comanche cph 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite your not acting nice in one of several ways, you haven't made a personal attack. Admins, please take note there hasn't been an attack on either Inge's talk page or on the Viking Age Article. There have been snide remarks and half hearted arguments, yes, but no personal attacks. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, stay cool i have called Inge for Vandal like Inge have called me for Vandal. I have called Inge ignorant. Because it seems like Inge was very Ignorant. But anyway, if thats the rules, i take my words back. --Comanche cph 21:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No personal attacks

"Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."
"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

I did use the term "revert vandalism" in some early edit summaries because Comanches early edits seemed like random removing of text. I later realised he was following a course of action based on his opinion on the subject and stopped using the vandal term. Comanche has persistantly been using the term vandal on several editors disagreeing with his view. That is using the vandal term as a mean to discredit them. In addition to name calling he has been spreading false quotes from me in my view in order to discredit me. And finally using editors Norwegian or Icelandic affiliation to discredit them. I assume edit summaries, other talk pages and all other venues of expression on wikipedia should count as well as my own talk page and the Vikig age talk page. Trying to discredit me in the eyes of other editors using name calling, derogatory terms, false quotes and affilitation I see as a greivous personal attack. So Orbitone I do appreciate your involvement, but if you are going to make broad statements in messages to administrators and others, please take a more in depth look at the case.

I appreciate Comanches willingness to stop using such personal attacks. It seems we have solved one problem at least:)Inge 12:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove warnings

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again.

Inge 15:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don´t write fictional articles. --Comanche cph 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Give me five!

Warning. Do not offend other users

Don´t call them vandal´s. Only they may call you vandal. That´s the rules. If you call vandals for vandals, they may crying, and tell a moderator or put warnings on your talk page.

Vikings

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

IF you are right or wrong, you still are not allowed to start a revert war. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you gonna do with vandals? I´m not here to make ravage, i have cleaned up the the Rollo of Normandy issue, with many Norwegians/Icelanders not seems to like, and keep changing it the Icelandic saga. --Comanche cph 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back what the others have writen as a matter of policy. If you revert it again today, I will give you a final warning and report this conflict to admins. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me ask you. Why are you reverting it. If you look at those who has reverting it, its all Norwegians or Icelandics who just WANTS to keep claiming that Hrolf (from the Icelandic saga) is Rollo of Normandy. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rollo_of_Normandy#Still_kicking_to_Rollo

When calling him "Rollo" as he WAS called, and not "HROLF". We have a natural view and agres with BOTH Theory´s, -and not the only very doubtful Icelandic saga.

So don´t think you are comming here and making wikipedia better. Just because the many ignorant Norwegians and Icelandians in here, keep changing it to the Pro-icelandic Theory. --Comanche cph 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The historical facts I cannot comment on, but you still went far beyond three reverts, but I wish to give you the chance to step back before you get into trouble. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouple? lol. Ok maybe we should make a aticle that says that Iceland conqured the hole world, and every time someone try to delete, we just have 10 acounts ready for RV it back. Or when they offend Danes, when writing that all scandinavians was known as Danes, as it was done. without any useful source. To make the Rollo from Denmark theory looks better, Then there are 10 norwegians/icelandians to protect that fake writing. This is pathetic. --Comanche cph 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Btw It´s over midnight, so i have just rv it back. --Comanche cph 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

I am sorry, but it doesn't matter that it is over midnight, it is still overly excessive and still far more than three in 24 hours. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further more.

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and adon't resort to making personal attacks or instigte edit wars. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You calling me uncivil? Thats against the rules!!! Don't resort to making personal attacks or instigte edit wars! Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Comanche cph 08:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Normans

Nothing personal, but we have rules on multiple reversions on articles. You've made 5 reversions on Normans in 24 hours, and as such, I've had to block you for 24 hours. -- Samir धर्म 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised of the three-revert rule WP:3RR. It hold for your reversions on Viking Age also. This is not a commentary on the content that you are reverting, but on the multiple reversions in a short period of time, which we believe harms consensus. Thank you -- Samir धर्म 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your repeated blanking of Scandinavia and your previous history at Wikipedia, you have been blocked for a week. --Bjarki 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using personal attacks

Calling me a vandal and my edits vandalism is not constructive. Inge 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you keep write unsourced rewrite, it is kind a vandalism. --Comanche cph 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You should read up on what vandalism is. Wikipedia has an official policy on what it is. Furthermore I have not rewritten the article I have reinserted a perfectly valid paragraph written by another user which you removed, that is not an unsourced rewrite. Inge 20:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not. It's not a reason to call all Danes for Scandinavians. And this user have forgotten a important part to your rewrite. That Hygelac was from the Danish Dynasty. --Comanche cph 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you take a calm look at things you might see that that was what happened. If you disagree with a piece of information or find yourself in a disagreemanet with a user please take it up on the relevant talk page in stead of trying to intimidate other users with slander. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. You might not have received the whole picture and others might have the information missing to let you see that other solutions and viewpoints are possible. Inge 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not problem with the Beowulf. It's says that Hygelac was king of the geats. But he was properly also king of some Danes, probably from Skåne area, Since it's also says that he was from the danish dynasty. And both Saxo and Anglo writers, call him dane and not geat. But no matter what. This can't be used to call all Danes for Scandinavians. Its also 300 years before Rollo. --Comanche cph 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this has nothing to do with Rollo and I am not claiming that all Scandinavians are or where Danes.Inge 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are the one who has wroted it, in Danes and Rollo of Normandy. --Comanche cph 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that then you have misread something. I am stating that Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders have during the Viking age been mistakenly labelled Danes by some other peoples. As to you accusations I hope you will come to some form of reason when I point out I haven't made a single edit to the Danes article. (I have mede several edits to Rollo of Normandy, but none relating to this.) Inge 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. No they were not. Just look at BBC viking history page etc. It explain who was Norwegains and who was Danes --Comanche cph 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I don't know how to put things more clearly to you. I am not stating that the inhabitants of modern day Great Britain believe all Scandinavians to be Danes. Inge 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not misunderstanding you. But there is no sources of this statment of you. --Comanche cph 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello, you have been blocked for 24 hours from editing Wikipedia. This is because you have continued to make personal attacks against other users, and have edit-warred at Scandinavia in violation of WP:3RR. When your block expires you are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, but you must not insult other users (which includes calling their contributions "vandalism") and you must not constantly revert to your preferred version of an article when multiple editors agree on a different version. User:Angr 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is edited by consensus, which in practice means that a majority will decide which version is the "correct" one. Why do you think you were recently blocked for 3RR on this? The version you constantly revert to is WP:POV, especially "Excessive assumption of local readership when writing about a topic specific to your locality". In some usage of the word, Scandinavia is more than S, N and D. --Janke | Talk 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so important for you to make Finland as Scandinavia? When it's not. What should be the difference between The Nordic countries and Scandinavia then? If we include Finland then allot of History pages here should be changed, and then should we also include the Baltic countries. Text books in Norway, Denmark and Sweden don't include Finland. Simple because Finland not are Scandinavia.

--Comanche cph 16:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making Finland a part of Scandinavia. I'm simply reinstating the consensus version, which says that it divides opinions. I didn't even write that section originally!. BTW, since you have just broken the 3RR again, you will probably be blocked once more. --Janke | Talk 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you are the one who keep saying that Finland is Scandinavia. There is NO different OPTIONS in Scandinavia -now you being pathetic.

And why don't you answer on the talk page instead. --Comanche cph 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have answered there, just after I answered here. --Janke | Talk 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any answar to your act? --Comanche cph 17:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again. Will (message me!) 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kool, i must be the record holder in blockings --Comanche cph 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia

In case it had not occurred to you, this is not the Norwegian, Swedish, or Danish Wikipedia; and English usage is, plainly, both broader and vaguer than the nationalist school texts you appeal to. A statement, with sources, that they do so define it belongs in the article, but their definition is not decisive for the rest of the article; in fact, any statement with sources would be preferable to unsourced advocacy. Septentrionalis 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case you don't know it. There is NO official statement with says Finland is Scandinavia. Finland is a hole other country cultural. And please keep you hands off the article. If you just knew a little in what Scandinavia is, you would't say it is named after Scandinavia peninsula. Since the peninsula is named after Scandinavia. --Comanche cph 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In a cleaning process, I copied and moved comments made by Comanche cph on my userpage to his page: "Please don't remove "citation needed" on Scandinavia If you don't have the citations. This is a part of cleaning th article. Have fun editing --Comanche cph 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)".

The official statements are visible in the links provided in the Scandinavia article. In case you want to dispute their reliability, please contact SWE and DEN EU representatives. Tak o hei. Prefixcaz 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont revert more than 3 times within 24 houers

There is a rule that says if you revert 4 times within 24 houers you get blocked for X amount of time so dont do it. I is called the 3rr rule (Supermos 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. -- ChrisO 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Ragnarok

I reverted your edits to Ragnarök and Ragnarok because you subverted the discussion on the talk page to merely suit your needs. The claim that ö is not an English letter does not mean that you can perform a copy-paste move to make the article named the way you want it to be named. Ryūlóng 19:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are pathetic. Sorry you failed your hopeful attacking moves against me, to cover the pro-icelandic vandalism.

The article ragnarök started as ragnarok. I just revert it back. The term Ragnarok is spelled different in different nordic countries buth today and in old norse. Ragnarok is still the English word. And it's not my needs, or my way. Ragnarök supports the icelandic spelling way.

What should we do with the article Midgard etc.? --Comanche cph 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ragnarok" and "Ragnarök" are both acceptable spellings of the word in English. Just because you have something against the way the word is spelled in other languages other than your own does not make me a pro-icelandic vandal or helping them. Iceland and Sweden use the umlaut, and several other Wikipedias use the umlaut in their articles for the same subject. Your method of doing copy-paste moves does not make you any better than the people you claim are vandals. Ryūlóng 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prøv at være mere venlig over for andre brugere

Comanche, er du egentlig klar over hvad du laver? Det her skriver jeg på dansk, så jeg er sikker på at du forstår det. Du er blevet advaret en masse gange fordi du fornærmer andre folk. Hvordan tror du at sådan en besked her virker på modtageren?[1] "Venlig" var ikke det allerførste ord du tænkte på, vel? Før du laver flere edits så læs WP:NPA og WP:Civil godt og grundigt. Wikipedia er et samfund, hvor vi kræver at deltagerne accepterer at andre ikke er nøjagtig magen til dem selv. Det betyder også at vi allesammen må acceptere at i andre samfund er det som du eller jeg anser som "det rigtige" eller har lært i skolen ikke nødvendigvis det samme der. Uanset om det gælder hudfarve eller historieopfattelse, så bygger Wikipedia på tolerance og venlighed og respekt for andre mennesker.

Derfor accepterer Wikipedias samfund ikke hvis én bruger omtaler andre med bemærkninger som "du fatter ikke at ..." eller det der er værre. Det kan godt være du synes bemærkningerne er sjove eller morsomme, men det er absolut ikke sikkert modtageren er enig. Især ikke så længe I skriver på engelsk, for på det sprog skal man være mere påpasselig end på dansk. Wikipedia bygger på at editorerne ikke angriber hinanden, men i stedet for diskuterer vi venligt hvis vi er uenige om noget. Folk er uenige hver eneste dag, men derfor er der jo ingen grund til at starte 3. Verdenskrig. Det her siger jeg for din egen skyld. Hvis du fortsætter som du er begyndt, så vil du bare blive blokeret igen og en dag så bliver det permanent. Det virker langt bedre at tale pænt til folk, så det vil jeg bede dig gøre fremover. Hvis du f.eks. har læst at Christian IV var rødhåret og en anden siger han var sorthåret, så skriv til ham du er uenig med: "jeg har læst i Gyldendals leksikon og Palle Laurings et eller andet at Christian IV var rødhåret. Hvoro har du dine oplysninger fra?" Så fortæller han, hvor han har sine oplysninger fra, og så vejer man stille og roligt de to udgaver af historien op mod hinanden. Hvis f.eks. den anden kan se det på et maleri lavet af Christian IVs hofmaler, så kunne det måske godt tænkes at Palle Lauring har haft en dårlig dag og har skrevet forkert. Hvis det ikke er tydeligt med det samme hvilken udgave af historien der er den rigtige (og sådan er det meget tit) så er man nødt til at finde flere oplysninger om emnet. Sværere er det faktisk ikke. Tag lige og tænk over det her for din egen skyld, hvis du fortsat gerne vil deltage på Wikipedia. Og nogen gange er det en utrolig god ide at sige "det her svarer jeg først på i morgen". Så er man normalt kølet ned til den tid. Hilsen. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavia

Jag har svarat på diskussionssidan. --Janke | Talk 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Your comments with User:Inge have become less that civil at time, though the block lock never does show you as a vandal, so his comments there may have been out of line. Nevertheless, civility is the only way to avoid a deterioration of the current situation and more possible blocks of users.Voice-of-All 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Moved

I just moved your request for assistance from WP:AN to WP:AN/I, considering that it is an incident. Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whatever. I was just trying to help you. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you. --Comanche cph 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're gonna undo my change, you might as well make it complete. Remove it from AN/I too. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blatantvandal

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Turkey, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. --Ugur Basak 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from foul language

Kære comanche_cph: Vær vennlig og les disse sider: (Dear comanche_cph: Please read these pages:) Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility --Barend 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for violation of 3 revert rule on Denmark-Norway

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-- ChrisO 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

I'm not sure exactly what you're doing with Ragnarok but could you please stop it? It makes no sense what you're doing right now, Ragnarok1 is not a right name for an article. --Joanne B 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Please help me then. I'm trying to move Ragnarök to ragnarok as the English spelling form and not the Icelandic spelling form. --Comanche cph 20:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for Incivility

You have been temporarily blocked for incivility. The block expires in 48 hours. When you come back please engage constructively or you will get nowhere. Thanks for your cooperation.--File Éireann 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you talk about. What incivility! Where? --Comanche cph 21:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny it seems like this admin here has blocked me for a issue i just have been blocked for. --Comanche cph 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Replacing warning

I am restoring this warning which you removed here [2] because I have no reason to believe you read and understood it.

Regarding this edit: [3] I don't think that was the most neutral way of stating that there is a bird named Turkey either. Please be more careful to respect WP:NPOV going forward. Please do not remove this warning without acknowledgeing that you have read and understood it. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC

Ok mr. Try to look at this frist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Comanche_cph#blatantvandal --Comanche cph 22:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, and that was a formal warning. Don't remove it again or you may find your block extended and this page protected. While I'm warning you about things, don't make sarcastic edit summaries like the one you used in removing it, and don't make edit summaries like this one: [4]. I hope to see you return to positive contributions after you have had some time to think about why you were blocked. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why should i not make this [5] edit? Why don't you answer in the talk page of it insted. It's has always been very officel that Denmark-Norway was ONE kingdom that time. It's not like UK. Look at sweden-norway it's the same. So what is your problem??

And what sarkasme do you talk about?? --Comanche cph 22:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fyrkant.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fyrkant.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi. How do you change

I assume you're asking about this "no cut and paste" bit I mentioned? :) See WP:MOVE for more information. All else aside, you and the other editor involved should probably both be aware that additional reverts within the next day or so would probably violate WP:3RR, potentially leading to a block. I'd suggest that the both of you put some more time into talk pages and the dispute resolution process. You're more than welcome to tell him/her I've said so, if you like. Happy editing. Luna Santin 10:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Scandinavia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. /M.O (u) (t) 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks. /M.O (u) (t) 11:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are inappropriately accusing other users of vandalism and engaging in personal attacks. If this continues, a 48 hour block will be imposed. Thank you for having made some constructive edits as well.--File Éireann 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you're also removing warnings again. You've been warned about that before. This too is an official warning, and it is from an admin, not to do that. Remove it and you may be blocked. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the 3 revert rule. Go look yourself!!! That guy should have a warning for give out fake warnings. If you don't answer within 24 hours i remove it again. --Comanche cph 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd like to go look but you've removed the warning so I have to go look in the history to find teh relevant links. That's why removing warnings with snippy edit comments is not as good a strategy as leaving them and politely answering them. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take fake warnings. I remove them. It's on Scandinavia btw. --Comanche cph 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

That wasn't a fake warning. Between this edit at 16:25, 16 August 2006 and this one at 17 August 2006 I count at least 8 edits from you, which are basically reverting the same few things over and over. 3RR is not a license to get exactly 3 reverts of exactly the same thing and 3 more of another thing, etc. It is, instead, a principle to adhere to: Don't edit war!. I have restored the warning you removed, and blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. If you remove this notice, or the above warning, I will extend your block. When you return, please remain civil, and please do not edit war. Spend the time off thinking about why edit warring is not a good use of resources. You have been warned about this repeatedly. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT I have NOT broken the 3 rv rule!! Then link my 4 revertions you accusing me for here. Or i will report you for abusing your admin position. --Comanche cph 17:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is 8 different edit's some even edit's to my own. Some even to fix my own typing. Unblock me or i will report you. It's your choice.

Keep your honor and admit you have done a mistake and we forget it. --Comanche cph 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like I need to put this up on WP:3RR for review. I think it will survive, but I'm always happy to have my actions reviewed. Note that you need to tone your rhetoric down a bit here, you're not being very civil. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported: [6] ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. This is all different edits. You will notice this if you try to read the edits! If that not is alowed i'm sure you should block that Magoe guy who started this. Because he has over 3 "edit's" to.

So what's the problem? --Comanche cph 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In my considered judgement there is a pattern of reversion to essentially the same version (with a "fact" template and with a certain position on Finland) by you, regardless of the exact edit changes, that exceeds 3RR. I noted that in my incident report. I'm done talking to you, I leave it to other admins to review this block, which I think is legit. Stop trying to wikilawyer about what exactly a 3RR is or isn't. As I said, it's a principle, not a specific algorithm. You were warring. Stop warring. I'm done. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Comanche cph claims that I have violated the 3RR, I feel that I should take some time to comment on it. First of all, I didn't "start" anything. Second, I have made three (3) edits to Scandinavia, subsequently I haven't violated the 3RR - No lies or claims that I have exceeded the 3RR, thank you very much. Anyway, these edits were all reverted by Comanche cph, in turn. Do the math, it's simple. (Hint: That makes 3 reversions.) Since I would never violate the 3RR (nor any other guideline or policy), I refrained from changing back, and I'm not that into pointless edit wars anyway. Then Comanche cph started reverting edits made by other wikipedians as well, and I put a 3RR warning on this talk page. Fair enough, I'd say, I didn't report Comanche cph on the WP:AN/3RR. But instead of heeding this warning, Comanche cph removed it, and continued this edit war. Earlier this afternoon I saw that Comanche cph had continued his/her edit war after deleting my warning. I restored this warning, and also added a new warning for removing warnings from ones own talk page, that isn't allowed. Comanche cph removed these warnings as well. Then Comanche cph recieved a warning from an admin, for the removal of previous warnings. By now, Comanche cph should have realized that he/she were out of line, but it seems Comanche cph didn't, since he/she persisted in this behaviour. And were subsequently blocked. But instead of accepting this block, and realizing that he/she have been out of line for a while, Comanche cph started ranting about abuse of adminship, about reporting the blocking admin, and so on. To me, it is more than obvious who is to blame for this, if we're going to do any pointing of fingers, that is. /M.O (u) (t) 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm

Would you please be so kind as to NOT mess up the article about Stockholm, just because it doesn't correspond to your personal point of view? Frankly, I've had it with your attitude around here, the articles on Wikipedia is based on facts, not personal opinions or assumptions. I won't enter another edit war with you this time (I'm sure that you're more than capable of ending up in one without the help from someone else), but I WILL revert this article a second time, as per explanation on its talk page, and hopefully other wikipedians will revert your edits if you persist. /M.O (u) (t) 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Magore.. This is a silly thing to argue and revert over - it is just facts. If you want to put in the Copenhagen article that it is more densly populated then Stockholm per square kilometer that is one thing, but it does not change the # of people living in STHML. Mceder 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what's up with my attitude now?? Maybe you should change yours. It seems like you don't like the facts i just putted on discussion in Stockholm.

Copenhagen is no doubt bigger than Stockholm it has always been a fact. You dopn't count a city with what area size the city use. Stockholm coount almost 3 times as much are size as Copenhagen. --Comanche cph 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, those weren't actually facts, but opinions and assumptions. /M.O (u) (t) 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance is almost funny. Please get off this page. --Comanche cph 21:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Comanche, AFAIK, Stockholm has 700,000+ people living within the municipal border. Københavns Kommune has little more than 500,000. The greater Stockholm region has 1.7 million people, AFAIK Greater Copenhagen has fewer than that. The Danish wikipedia (da:København) gives these numbers for Copenhagen: Copenhagen municipality: 501,000, Greater Copenhagen: 1,086,000 (da:Hovedstadsområdet) vs. en:Stockholm: (Stockholms kommune: 776,545, Greater Stockholm: 1,729,000) No matter how I look at these numbers, I can only draw the conclusion that Stockholm has more citizens than Copenhagen (or Oslo or Helsinki for that matter). I have not seen any documentation suggesting otherwise. Oslo municipality has 541,000 and Greater Oslo has 825,000, Helsinki has 563,000. Based on these data, I can only conclude that Stockholm is larger than the other cities, nomatter if we only count the municipality or if we count the entire metropolitan region. Cheers. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all. Can't we just keep this discussing in Stockholm and not on this page.

And Valentinian this is not about "Kommune" but about city size. Not matter witch area size we use to Copenhagen and Stockholm. Copenhagen will be far most populated.

Please answer in Stockholm. --Comanche cph 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning about Copenhagen and Stockholm

Off a block and edit warring (over something else) again within hours? My first instinct was to just reblock you but let's try a different approach. I've warned the lot of you: Talk:Stockholm#No_more_edit_warring_about_this_please but you get a special warning. ANY more edits to Stockholm about anything at all, related to size or not, by you before there is a clear consensus on the talk page about size, and I'll give you a block for the 3rr, a block for edit warring in general and a block for ignoring this warning. You're not seeming to get it, you need to stop edit warring. Any response here other than "I understand I have been edit warring and I plan to stop" may well get you a block too, because, frankly, you're wasting people's time and it's just not appropriate. Please stop. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. ... You were warned about Copenhagen I told you that any reverting without discussion and clear consensus would get a block. [7] is a reversion without consensus. You need to not do that. Last warning. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude. But i'm not the reverter in Copenhagen. Maybe you should interest in something else than follow one user. --Comanche cph 00:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring over Copenhagen and Stockholm

You were warned about this. Yet you persisted in reverting, and in moving discussion around (such as here, and several revisions afterwards), and generally going against consensus. Blocked for 48 hours since this is not your first offense. Please, reconsider your approach, you need to discuss collegially, and work within consensus. The compromises offered you were very reasonable but you persisted. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What kind of pure soul of an wikipedia admin are you? I haven't touched the article of stockholm. The edit's on Copenhagen is not the same thing, it's just some facts putted on --Comanche cph 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You were warned about Stockholm as it was a clear 3rr violation, and I told you any edits that reintroduced this material would get you a block. So you went over to Copenhagen. You're violating what I said not to violate. The consensus is clear on both articles, this comparision of yours is not generally accepted, yet you persist. Stop. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, edit summaries like this one: [8] are totally unacceptable. ++Lar: t/c 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No i did't. What i have made on Copenhagen is facts i have putted on. If you don't like it, you should use the talk page and tell what you think is wrong with it. Now you have blocked me two times without i have violate any rules. It seems like you have a problem in handle your given adminship. --Comanche cph 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really. So what about that Barend moved my posting for second time. But hey thats okey with you right. --Comanche cph 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in the content, I have no opinion about which is correct, other than to note that general consensus is that you are wrong and you are tendentiously warring over it on the articles and the talk pages. Stop doing that. Your next block is going to be a lot longer if you don't change your ways. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi there Comanche cph! I noticed that you had been recently blocked for an incident that most Wikipedians would label as edit warring. First off, I want to let you know that I think that you are indeed trying to make Wikipedia a better place and did not come here with the intentions of getting involved in controversy. It takes multiple parties to edit war, and I hope you don't feel that the community is placing the sole blame on your shoulders. I hope that you'll continue to edit Wikipedia after your block expires as you seem to have a passion for editing articles about Central European history and geography. If you have questions about the 3RR policy or other Wikipedia policies, or if you have any other interests that you might want to explore or begin to edit, drop me a line and I'll try to point you in the right direction. You might want to join a WikiProject, which is a collaboration amongst like-minded individuals on a particular topic. Good luck! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Vikings

I'm here to ask you to stop edit warring on Viking. We have an acceptable concensus for this article, please don't go against it. Besides, it's not incorrect to say that the vikings originated in Scandinavia, Iceland was settled by Norse explorers. /M.O (u) (t) 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for egregious incivility, edit warring on Vikings

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

You were back how long before resuming your ways? Blocked for a week. Too much edit warring on Vikings, and very incivil edits and edit summaries. This edit, in particular, is outrageously incivil. [9]!!! Knock it off. You really need to learn better. Next block, if you don't straighten up, is a month, and the one after that, if it comes to that, will be indef. You've about exhausted my patience, and that of many other good editors. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can suck my balls, fat geek. I'm reverting vandalisme. --Comanche cph 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think the project can do without your kind of help, thank you. Especially in the light of your last comment, I will gladly extend your block to indefinite if you should continue in the same vein after this one expires. You are welcome to resume editing if you decide to politely (and preferably halfway grammatically) discuss your sourced propositons on talkpages. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a "slut" is in no way shape or form reverting vandalism, sorry. As for your request... no, I don't think so, but I told you not to continue your ways. Have it your way then, blocked for a month, and this page will be protected against further abuse by you, should you again speak incivilly here. At that time you will have to take any appeals to email. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry mister but i am not even home the next 3-4 monts. So why should i care. This wikipedia is just for geeks. It has nothing to do with encyclopedia. --Comanche cph 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The "400 year long night"

My comments regarding the Danish wikipedia relates to the generally low quality of this work, not this article in particular. You asked, if I'd read the Danish article, I answered "No", and this is the reason. Secondly, I thought your post meant that I was supposed to comment on the separation between Norway and Denmark, so I concentrated on this part of the sentence.

I am quite aware of the existence of this word. A lot of harsh words were said between Danes and Norwegians during the late nineteenth century (and the old stories got new life in the 1920s). In some respects, this feeling lasted until World War II. But AFAIK modern Norwegian historians are somewhat embarrassed by it today. Just like many young Danes are somewhat embarrassed by some of the anti-German things written by Danes in the 1840s, and like many young Germans are pretty embarrassed by many things in German history. Norway was a young nation trying to determine what characterized its own identity, and it reacted the same way many other nations did back then; by blaming everything on another country. Norway blamed Denmark, Denmark blamed Germany, Germany blamed France, France blamed Germany, Rumania blamed Hungary, Hungary blamed Austria, Greece blamed Turkey, Turkey blamed Greece and Russia etc. etc. Most of these disputes had a lot of truth to them, but they got out of control when politicians began using these disputes as a very easy way to win political debates. If a politician didn't have any arguments, he could always make a hate speech. Unfortunately, quite a lot of politicians chose this easy solution.

When writing about history, many authors still add a few of these terms to give the writing a little "colour". In some cases, it might be a good idea, but it is not the case everywhere, it all depends on the context. If the issue is harmless today - or even better - if both sides can see it as a little comic, then no problems. An example: during the 1848-51 war, a German publisher printed a caricature of Frederick VII dressed as a fishmonger (fiskekone) selling German fish (since Denmark had blockaded Hamburg and other German ports during this war.) This image is used in many Danish books, and nobody has any problems with it, since the dispute is long dead and gone. For more controversial images, people normally chose to include two images showing both sides of the story, e.g. when writing about the German-Danish wars, it is a bad idea to add a caricature of a German soldier killing a Dane (or the other way around). But adding both images next to each other tells both sides of the story, so that is ok.

In this particular case, I cannot help but notice that eventhough this article has existed for more than 1½ years, no (Norwegian) editor has added this term to the page. I checked. So perhaps there might be a good reason. If you think this term deserves mentioning, may I suggest that you simply ask on the talk page if people think this is a good idea?

My own particular POV on this and similar issues is that this is an international encyclopedia and we must always take very good care not to give new life to old disputes between different nationalities. I love history, I always have, but I don't love the way Danish and Norwegian history writing developed. 1864 gave Denmark such a massive trauma, that most people shut their eyes and ears and ignored everything outside of the 1864-1920 border. This means that a lot of old Danish history books are very incomplete and rather useless, since they deliberately ignore important parts of our history. At the same time, Norwegian historians tried to write Denmark out of Norway's history. Both these trends produced a very distorted view of the past. But during the last 20-30 years, many historians in both Denmark and Norway have come to the conclusion that this way of writing is meaningless, and this is why people are now trying to get rid of this background and instead try to describe Scandinavia's history in more neutral terms, taking into account all sides of the story. This process is very far from complete, but I believe that all ages must be understood on their own terms, not our modern situation. I can't say it better than a Greek historian did when he wrote to me a few months ago: "Let the past speak for itself. Sometimes this voice is very subtle and very weak. The voice of the past is not a human voice, for everyone is long dead and gone. The voice of the past is the subtle voice of History, names, customs, art etc. We should treat the historical past like archaelogists treat a newly found tomb. Tenderly and with surgical precision and using the right tools. Attention is needed even in the smallest details. Only then our analysis will make the voice of the past audible again. The past can speak to us, if only we give it a fair chance and we must; because it is our ancestors and even us eventually. Our identity, our culture etc."

I can only agree with him, so now you know what motivates me to write the way I do. I don't try to hide away anything, when I look at a historical situation, I try to find out how did people look at this situation when it actually happend. But again, if you think this information is relevant to the article, then why not ask others on the talk page if they agree? But don't forget that the other half of this story is that there was no major disputes between Danes and Norwegians during the life of the union (1536 is the exception) and the majority in both countries were opposed to ending the union in 1814. Merely citing the "400 year long night" comment without context makes it look like the union died because of hatred between Danes and Norwegians, but this was not what actually happend, and this is why both sides of a story always need to be included. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. What you are saying is NOT to right faculties, but wrong things. --194.255.124.250 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 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.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Checkuser procedure

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

Rollo and frivolous RFCU cases

Stop with the revert warring. You've been warned before about this. After being away a long time, your first few edits are the same old revert warring, three times to the same article. Remember that 3rr is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. I see you're also filing frivolous RFCU cases: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Holger the Dane. This is the only warning you will receive about this matter from me, the next time I see you disrupting this way, you will be blocked at this account, in addition to all the others you have already been blocked at. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about revert warring over and over again, in fact, multiple times over many months, just on this account. But the warnings have been not just at this account, but at your many socks as well. I see you still at it on Christian II of Denmark and Rollo. I told you that the last warning was your last one. Blocked indefinitely. If you undertake not to revert war, I will consider lifting it but you have caused too much trouble on too many articles at this point for anything less than indefinite. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian II of Denmark

Stop replacing sourced material with your own theories. Read any credible book about Christian II and it describes that the expression "Christian the Good" can not be confirmed by contemporary sources. "Kristian Tyrann" can, that is the difference. Simply reverting a piece of well-known history, even backed up by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to your preferred UNSOURCED version and accusing others of POV-pushing in the edit summary, is not behaviour acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Stop it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

It is there: Talk:Christian_II_of_Denmark#C._the_Good

Fred-Chess 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Trelleborg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trelleborg.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rollostenen.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Rollostenen.jpg, by Valentinian, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Rollostenen.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Source page indicates that all content is copyrighted

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Rollostenen.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Rollostenen.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ScandinaviaColour03.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ScandinaviaColour03.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rollotårn.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Rollotårn.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter

Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms"
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires
Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan
Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:DanevirkeT.gif

The file File:DanevirkeT.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]