User talk:Fred chessplayer~enwiki/Archive3

Swedish administrative reorganization in store?

Hi Fred. Would you happen to have any information on or links to the prospects of replacing the Swedish counties with larger regions? If executed, such plans would be on par with recent development in Finland, England and Scotland, upcoming developments in Denmark, and ongoing debates in Norway. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Big A. That information was added by user:Boivie, on September 21, 2005. [1]. It was reported on the news that day. / Fred-Chess 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okidoke. i'll ask him. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred; what do you consider a major issue conserning Sweden?

Jews are a part of Swedish history, past and present. Are you Swedish, do you live in Sweden? If you do, did you read the papers or listen to the radio lately? My other question is, how can Hollidays be consider a major issue, or Music, or all the Nobel Prize winners but not Jews? You are keen in writting and exaggerating facts about Sweden, but when it comes to an issue like this one, something bad about Sweden's past and present, you consider it Not a major issue. It's OK and valid to write good things about something and maybe also exaggerate them a bit if that makes you feel good, but it is also virtuous to show the bad side of the story, after all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are suppose to inform people, objectivly, not induce a point of view. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you should re-consider the major issues on the main article and try to be objective. At least some part of the article you deleted you should agree on. Tony Carlberg, Falun, Sweden.

So you think all country articles should contain information of how the country has treated Jewish people? Why not Arabic people, or gypsies?

I've already told you that I don't disagree with the information, but that it shouldn't be on the article Sweden. Discuss it further on talk:Sweden, not with me. / Fred-Chess 09:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred , I'm new with this. That you don't agree means that it will always be removed? Is it a defacto decision? That article is about the II world War and Sweden and thing that have been uncovered the last few years. Using your line of reasoning there are other articles that are irrelavent to Sweden, like Hollidays. Can I just delete it and say to who ever wrote it to put it on a different section? And I didn't say "all country articles should contain information of how the country has treated Jewish people", these are your words. I don't understand why I should discuss it on talk sweden and not with you, when it was you who disagreed.

If you want people to agree with you about the contents of an article, then you should discuss it on the article talk page. If people disagree with me then I won't continue to remove it.

To write about the holidays was decided in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries a long time ago. But that is not unchangeable, only a guideline to outline the article structure. In fact, the holiday section used to contain a long table, but I removed it myself, and replaced it with the current text.

Fred-Chess 10:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, what I don't understand is your roll on this, why if YOU disagree then it has to change. I thought that anyone can edit and do changes.

Anyone can edit and do changes. Anyone can also revert you. I don't have any special position. / Fred-Chess 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Svensk Propaganda? din dumbom! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.230.18 (talk • contribs)

You're probably talking about this edit of mine. Your not helping your cause by insulting me. / Fred-Chess 12:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy I was refering to this 17:21, 14 April 2006 Fred chessplayer (→Recent history - rm the same anti-Swedish propaganda which was removed earlier), not your edit. Telling the truth about something doesn't make it anti swedish. YOU don't have to agree with it, but many people here in Sweden do. Still, if the idea of the whole article is to summarize about Sweden, it probably was too long. But I think you still miss the point! You have your particular way of insulting too!

Kven users RfC

Hello FCP. I have posted a few additional comments and changes in your RfC page. But I would like to state that neither you nor Mikkalai have been very effective in containing this user, or even willing to identify him/her as a troll. The inevitable consequence is that good-faith users such as myself have withdrawn from participating in the dispute resolution process due to the poor editing/discussion climate. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 09:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thank you. / Fred-Chess 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ac.tuke.jpg's license issues

I saw your defense of the photo on that image page, I thought you'd get a kick out of my argument to put it to rest once and for all. Bobak 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelar du schak eller har spelat och är du från Malmö eller har varit i Malmö?

Rubriken säger allt ;)

(Deng 01:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Swedenborgianism

There is a question on whether there is a difference between (and a need for two articles about) The New Church and Swedenborgianism. You did quite a bit of work a while back on the article. Could you provide some guidance and your feelings on whether a merge would be appropriate or not? Thanks, Kevin/Last1in 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have much to say about it actually... but thanks for asking...

The reason why the article name is Swedenborgianism because the 1911 EB, which the article was originally based on, had its article at that name. But perhaps two articles, The New Church and Swedenborgianism, is more suitable.

Fred-Chess 09:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 18:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Air Force One on the ground.png

Hi Fred,

You have deleted the above image and given the explanation that it was tranwiki-ed to commons, but it appears that several articles (such as Air Force One and Boeing 747) now see a broken image instead. Don't mind if you have a look into this, and perhaps fix the problem? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air Force One on the ground.png

Hmmm the image was deleted from Commons. Commons deletion log:

- 14:26, 30 April 2006 EugeneZelenko deleted "Image:Air Force One on the ground.png" (Thumbnail of :Image:Air Force One on the ground.jpg. Checked with CheckUsage)

But there appears to is something wrong with the ChechUsage tool which is probably why Eugene didn't find it was used (see [2]).

But I'll fix it right away...

Fred-Chess 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only now did I notice that Image:Air Force One on the ground.jpg is different from the commons image with same name (commons:Image:Air Force One on the ground.jpg), and thus the local image is blocking the Commons image which is probably the one you want. Oh well... if you're not happy with the change, make a suggestion... such as uploading one of the images with a new name and request me to delete the other...

Fred-Chess 18:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, jpg and png (original format)! I see why now. ;) How about that, transwiki the local copy to commons as, say Image:Air Force One on the ground2.jpg? (btw, make sure commons doesn't have a superior copy under another name again) Then include both on the Air Force One commons gallery, and that should solve the whole thing. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ok, I'll do it when I get the time. Perhaps it's faster if you do it yourself. / Fred-Chess 19:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kven is back

Kven strikes back in full force, see Digi_Wiki (talk · contribs). Are you ready to proceed with formal actions? `'mikka (t) 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The voting process

Hi there Fred chessplayer. Where's that list of nominees for admin. duties? Saw a comment about it someplace, but now I can't find my way back to that particular thread so I can take a look at the list. I've been checking some of your edits and comments (on a limited range of issues so far, I admit) but on those you have shown great diplomacy and tact, even when people arguing against you, or against certain necessary edits, reveal their most obstinate and chauvinistic behavior. I just want to keep an eye on that nomination page so that I can throw my vote in the bucket once I've had more time to read some more of your stuff (hope that's all good too), and once I have gained a more thorough grasp of the concepts kicked around about editing. Love to see a "Malmöing" (he, he) step up to the plate and work his way up in the hierarchy. Best wishes, --Pia 22:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's very nice of you. I try to do my best (most of the time)-

Regarding administrators, there is the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, where I was a nominee as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fred chessplayer, between the 4th and 11th February, at which time I became an admin with the ballot +49 -5 =1. Looking back, I should maybe have dropped a note to those voting, but I hope they appreciate I spent my time doing some useful stuff instead... (which is why they voted on me in the first place, I think).

Fred-Chess 17:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! I wouldn't worry about writing notes at this time. I didn't realize it was such an old thread. But belated congratulations all the same and thanks for the link, Pia 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Border

What did you mean about fixing the "list issue" [3]? I was forced to create Template:Border-notinline to get around the change, which distorted flag display on WP:ITN.--Pharos 02:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work in lists. Compare:

Border in line
with Border not-inline

Fred-Chess 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scanian linguistics

Fred chessplayer, please pretty please, could you check the formating etc at Scanian_(linguistics). I added all the citations that had been requested there by different people over the year or so since it was established, but I'm new at editing so I want to make sure someone experienced looks it over. (Forgot to log in too, before making the corrects. Sigh. It's 3AM and I'm rushing--have to catch som zzzzs. Thanks in advance, Pia 09:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through it, and I couldn't find anything wrong... / Fred-Chess 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred Chess. I was worried about the footnote format, especially. I just used what was there already, because I couldn't figure out how to get the ref tag going. But is that manual { {1} } system still in general use? Somehow, that format seems like a lot of work for however comes in to do later edits, because that person will have to go back and change the intext and bottom numbers manually everywhere. Not for the faint of heart, especially after I added another 13 or so. :) Thanks again and later, Pia 19:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the ref tag is to be preferred, they say, but I don't think it is such a big deal. It is more convinient, but requires that all references gets changed at once so it takes a little work if done by hand. I think the Swedish article explains the ref tag very well, see sv:Wikipedia:Källhänvisningar. / Fred-Chess 03:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tusen tack! That's much better than the EN version, I must say. :) Pia 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, that's great news! I think. Ha, ha..I don't even know what "Good article" status entails yet, but I'll make sure to figure it out so we can keep doing it. Thanks for the sweet words--especially since I only added some footnotes..you guys had already done all the work. (Eh, hrmm, you know, all that's missing now is an info box showing the number of speakers etc, but that's a long long story, a whole novel on the discussion board, I noticed. I guess the people writing the Swedish wiki article for skånska put their foot down a little harder--the one man 'box remover' task force wasn't able pull it away from them over there.) ;) Best wishes, Pia 10:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Fred!

Good job on the Skåneland article! I noticed that you managed to get that page into the good article category (I read your the links you sent me explaining it all too. Thanks for thinking of me.). By the way, it would be great to get some pictures on that page. I am going to contact Øresundstid to ask if Wikipedia may use a picture or two (or a map, alt. illustration) from their archives. Please check the pictures out to see which one you think would be the best. I'll let you know what they say (once I've figured out how to make the request). There's a standard form to use for requests like that, right? Best,Pia 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Øresundstid has some nice images, but I wonder if they are willing to release them under a free license. We have a lot of images, especially from Skåne. I put some in the articles just as examples, although there are a lot more to chose from. up+land 05:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia commons pic concern

Hi Fred Chess Player, I posted this on the Wikimedia commons side already (I think) but I'm not sure where the message actually went, so maybe you guys working over there won't find it either. Thought I'd better double up and put it your page as you are one of the administrators involved over there: I just noticed a week or so ago that the coats of arms image on this page is suddenly showing up very large and pixelated on the page. I know you are hard at work on a lot of things, but if you get a chance, please check to make sure there's not a more general problem with people tampering with the images in that category. Sorry I can't be of more help by checking on this issue myself. Best, Pia 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks, Pia 00:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that you reverted my req. for peer review with AfD / weasel words /speedy deletion. Unsure why this was reverted? This seemed like the best place to as kfor help, if not, where should i post to find out why i keep getting rev'ed? 72.197.2.40 08:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should try the article discussion page, or you can ask the person who reverted you. / Fred-Chess 09:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish FLC

Hi, just a note that I believe the list is really of featured material (all the minor things could be fixed quite quickly) and it's pretty sad because of the red links... Know, you don't give up. In a several months there is gonna be much more blue, you'll see :) Renata 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i appreciate it. Especially since I spent a lot of time with it, 40h+ at least. The list now contains 81 blue links to species so that should be around 160 red links. Unfortunately animal species articles aren't written fast enough... for instance, look at the family Percidae to see how many red links there are... and there are around 18,000 species of fish in total (if my calculations are correct).... it will take a long time for the red links to turn blue.... maybe in five years... I'll just have a beer and maybe start working on Archbishop of Uppsala instead.

Fred-Chess 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how you feel - I have my own baby List of cities in Lithuania. I have been working on it since... forever (sometime last year). But I know it's nowhere near featured status (yet). So I'll join you for that beer :) Renata 22:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, you seem not to understand some things

You are behaving in a fascist way and a bit unrational. Read what I answered you in the discussion page and think for a minute leaving your nationalist pride aside. CENSORING will not solve the issue. And you seem to care a lot about my sourses than others. I have proposed something, Discussion and Conclusion, not autoritarism. YOU do not have the final word, nor do I. So there must be a NEUTRAL way around this. The article must remain and changed from a subjective way to an objective way. And again, concerning the sources, I mentioned a book.