User talk:DagErlingSmørgrav

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


Hello, DagErlingSmørgrav, 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:Where to ask a question, 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!  --Rory096 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for helping me with the typos I missed on my articles! --Mike Searson 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject France[edit]

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


A fresh perspective and some sanity is always a calming influence ;). 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Please do not revert legitimate(non-vandalism) edits without an adequate summary. It's extemely unhelpful. I have re-reverted your change on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations for this reason. Thanks, i kan reed 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. A terrible mistake on my part. The other user was the one doing the blanking. i kan reed 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apollo Controversy Meditation[edit]

Hi. You submitted a request for meditation on the Meditation Cabal and I have decided to be your meditator. Before any meditation can be done, however, the other side must come. There can be no meditation with out two sides. Can you please get people on the other side of the issue for the meditation? Thank you.

Captain panda In vino veritas 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes, nice work. It's not an issue for me, but just watch out for the COI complication. Deb (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Leyte Gulf reverts[edit]

I know what aft mean. It's after that I don't. Be more consistent with your messages in the edit summaries. You say after means aft or rear one time and then later on it's something else. Common words should be used where possible. Good day. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image licence[edit]

Ok no problem. --Pixeltoo (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Just specify «originally created by pixeltoo». --Pixeltoo (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I filed a Spam report too - if his domain gets blacklisted then future edits will get caught by bot, see Mfield (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, I had to ask 2 questions. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost there now. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 WRC[edit]

No problem. I just hope we didn't scare User:Keke Ruehle away! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TWA 847[edit]

Please see Talk:TWA Flight 843 WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Weijeng (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)thanks for your suggestions. I'll correct it by myself in these days.

AF A380[edit]

Show me a press report that AF has officially received delivery of the A380. Until then any changes stands as Vandalism. See WP:FUTURE. Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 02:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I included a reference in my edit. Even if I hadn't, it wouldn't be vandalism; see WP:AGF. DES (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism applies to speculative information as well. The article you used as a point of reference does not state in any context that that Air France has received delivery of it's first A380. All it states it the first A380 destined for Air France is painted in the new corporate colours and it's configuration has been announced and that's about it. Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 09:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on ETKA and several other articles. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


I urge you to be much more specific in all of your accusations, backing up statements like

  • "He/she is abusive"
  • "keeps making counterfactual edits to numerous VAG-related articles"
  • "‎ (talk · contribs)'s entire talk page is filled with disputes over edits he/she has made to various VAG-related page"

with specific Wp:Diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How can I be more specific? Take a look at his talk page, there is nothing there other than disputes over VAG-related articles. DES (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I hope you've read WP:NOR. Who has said "This is moot if the V is seen as the first letter of the word "Virgo" (virgin) rather than the second letter of the word "Ave". What's your reliable source for this? Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is predicated on the interpretation of "AVM" as "Ave Maria", which requires an explanation for the V. However, the fact box at the top of the article claims that AVM is short for "Ave Virgo Maria". If that is the case, there is no need to explain the presence of a V or the absence of an E, and the entire section is superfluous.
Note that this article (referenced in Barrett, Minnesota and Johan Andreas Holvik) suggests a completely different interpretation of AVM which is not mentioned here.
While we're throwing WP:*s around, IMHO this article could use a big fat WP:POV warning. The entire debate section seems to me to lend undue weight to the hypothesis that the stone is real, whereas, as the intro states, the overwhelming academic consensus is that it is a hoax.
My personal opinion is that it is a fabrication, and I cannot understand how any knowledgeable person could take it seriously. The stone is supposed to have been carved by 14th-century Norwegians yet the text is in modern Swedish, badly transcribed (including the rookie mistake of transcribing the letter D into the similar-looking but different-sounding thorn) into a set of runes which is inconsistent with other sources from that period.
DES (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I have a problem with using the Massey brothers at all. I love the way they are called the "Massey Twins". I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know the Massey brothers from Adam... but this reminds me of the folk etymology of words like fuck, posh etc., where people concoct elaborate stories to explain something which does not need explaining simply because they are unaware of (and couldn't be bothered to find out about) the actual facts. DES (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 Oslo bombing[edit]

Map of the Government Quarter in Oslo, showing areas that were cordoned off after the bombing.

I've created a map of the Government Quarter showing the areas that were cordoned off on Friday, July 22nd and on Monday, July 25th. This is based on my own recollection and therefore not (currently) WP:RS.

Nomination of Carsten Thomassen (journalist) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carsten Thomassen (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carsten Thomassen (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. meco (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Chrysler Neon[edit]

DES, please don't take this wrong way, as I know you mean well. You are greatly overlooking that the 1993 dates originated from my research, as 1995 is highly incorrect[1]-[2]. The Neon had been on the market for 12 months by January 1995 and publicised since September 1993. Production began on November 10, 1993, after production development had started in September 1991.

In fact, the Chrysler Motor Corporation rather (Legally) cheated by introducing the Neon lineup as 1995 models in January 1994. Typically, the late third and overall fourth quarter of the previous calendar year, are when new U.S. model years are introduced (October 2014=2015 Ford Mustang).

This is why in April 1964, Ford nicknamed the 1965 Mustang the 1964.5 model. It came much earlier than most new U.S. model years, that typically launched in September or October of the previous calendar year. From the 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. has become insane with releasing next model years to market too early in the year (i.e. January-March 2014 as 2015 model). This creates very long 16-18 month model years and fodder for arguments on whether a product offered in January of year A, should be called a year B (2015) model. This has strictly been a practice limited to US marketing schemes.

As for the vandalism, I wholeheartedly agree. I wasn't directing any of my criticism at you, but that particular vandal that kept messing around with things. I know you mean very well and had your research muddled by their malicious nonsense.----Carmaker1 (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Address space layout randomization[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. KMeyer (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)