User talk:Valentinian/Archive 7

Archives
4 May 2005 – 4 May 2006 4 May 2006 – 19 July 2006 19 July 2006 – 23 August 2006 23 August 2006 – 10 January 2007 10 January 2007 – 3 May 2007 3 May 2007 – 27 June 2007 27 June 2007 – 8 September 2007

+ 50,000 edits

Hej Val
Congrats with supasiing 50,000 edit counts with a total of 50,334 edits to the english wikipedia. total count. Remember that editcountitis can be fatal
Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

IC XC ! That many? Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

About 10,000 of those edits seems to be reverts on norsemen or norwegian people ;-) Glad you're watching out ! Finnrind 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

YMSTICPC ;) Besides, I have relatives on your side of the border (not that I've ever actually met them) so I keep an eye on a few things relating to Norway. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lauge Koch Nature Reserve

It's about 16 months since I wrote that article as a one-line stub, trying to get Greenland up to 60 stubs :) Which is another way of saying that I don't remember where the info came from, though probably from an online source (serves me right for not listing sources...). Given that you're in Denmark, so a little more likely to have accurate information about Greenland, I'll take your word for my source being inaccurate. Perhaps smerge and redirect? Grutness...wha? 00:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of subjects...

Here are a couple of subjects which might interest you, Talk:Faroe Islands#Norway and World War II and Talk:Greenland#Danish deceit in 1953. -- Nidator 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• #Greenland Hmm, I'm not really surprised that IA considers Denmark's annexation of the colonies in Greenland as a "betrayal". After all, it is a pro-independence party. One wonders what the prospects would have been for an independent Greenland in 1953? A few days of independence followed by annexation by the U.S.? To this day, the administration of Greenland remains controlled by Danes to a large extent since next to no Greenlanders have bothered taking the relevant educations themselves. It would actually be a nice change if Greenland's representatives in the Folketing started doing something else than simply blaming Denmark for all the evils in the world while demanding more money. No wonder that so many Danes support Denmark cutting the ties to Greenland. This behaviour from the Greenlandic MPs also seems like a likely explanation why Danish media have ignored this report or whatever it is. The only thing I know about the 1953 events is that they went very quickly regarding the Greenland issue, but I don't know why. If you're interested in the 1953 events, you should try to find a copy of Grønland under den kolde krig. Dansk og amerikansk sikkerhedspolitik 1945-68 published by Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Institut (DUPI), Copenhagen, 1997, ISBN 87-601-6921-4. If you order it from a library, make sure to get both volumes. Volume II is a "bilag" volume with photocopies of official records. The ISBN number covers both volumes.
• #Faroes: I've never really examined that topic, but as I heard the story ages ago it went like this (Danish POV): During WWII, Norway's exiled government tried to get Denmark labelled by the Allies as a full fledged member of the Axis, something it believed would enable Norway to claim war "reparations" from Denmark (read: rob Denmark of all Danish territories in the North Atlantic). I don't know this cabinet would have recognized Iceland's independence or if it would have wanted to annex them as well. The plan ultimately went sour since the Norwegian government - after returning to Oslo in 1945 - realised that the population didn't consider Denmark an enemy but more remembered the shipments of oat meal Denmark sent to Norwegian kids during the war (you probably know the "Takk for suppen" photograph.) Anyway, that's the Danish POV on that story. Actually, I once ran across a title in the records of the Danish Foreign Ministry: "Norwegian agitation in the Faroes", or something along those lines. I never read the box, but I doubt it would contain more than a few newspaper clippings. To get back on track: this event is one of those stories I've deliberately avoided looking into. I personally prefer the ending that these events actually took nomatter how the story started: Norway sent a statue to Denmark as thanks for the food shipments, it is located near Oslo Plads in Copenhagen. It shows two sisters and carries the inscription Norge takker Danmark. 1940-1945. [1] Happy editing. --Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. That is very interesting. My guess is that the Norwegian government would have let Iceland go, feeling that an independent Iceland was better than a "Danish" Iceland. I'm also fond of the good relations between our too nations, but perhaps you could post the two parts of your reply in the relevant talk sections? It could stimulate some more discussion on what I find to be very fascinating subjects. -- Nidator 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you found it interesting. I just noticed your post to Talk:Portuguese Empire. I think you'll find my reply there interesting. I'll try to refactor my comments here to something less rant-like (Greenland), but it'll have to wait till tomorrow. Regards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a post regarding the Faroes. "Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie" vol IV does in fact mention such a Norwegian attempt. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Constitution BY.png

I made the cover based on the documents made by the government. It doesn't matter what license is used on the image; as long as it is free, it's fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for the heads-up. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the article is at FAC, if you want to roast it or me, anytime soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I prefer to avoid editing/reading material relating to Belarus (unless it is completely harmless). Btw, you are still very welcome to roast my puny article about the coat of arms of Denmark. :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On that article, I would beef up on the citations a little bit and change the display of the images. Many of the images, especially at the top, float over the text making it hard to read. If you seen my article on the Belarusian emblem, that can give some pointers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've tried moving the images, but two of will have to be wider than the rest for obvious reasons. I'll look into the references issue and expand/clarify the history bit. I'm also looking for images of later versions, but the problem is that PD-art most likely doesn't apply in Denmark, so I can't use a lot of the most obvious images candidates. I'm not sure if I'll keep the image gallery or not. I guess it will depend on the length of the finished text. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is also a law stating on what can/cannot be done with the national arms, I would include that too. If there is any flags with the arms on it, I would include those too. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. Denmark has never adopted an actual law on the issue. We do have § 132 in the criminal code which simply states that it is illegal to impersonate officials by using uniforms or insignia reserved for them, including insignia of the Red Cross. Flags? Yes, the monarchy uses flags with the coat of arms; it is included in different shapes in the flag of the King/monarch, of the Queen (no longer in active use since the death of Queen Ingrid) and in the flag of the heir to the throne. I guess I might find an old illustration in Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon from 1916 and consider it an anonymous work.([2]) The editors of this work never mentions the names of the illustrators. Salmonsen also has a great image of the 1903-47 version signed with a signature I've never seen before ([3]) however, the initials match a Karl Jensen who died in 1933 and apparently didn't sign many of his illustrations. I think I'll be a little bold here and make a positive identification, in particular since the corresponding article was written by Anders Thiset with whom Jensen was working on a larger project during the same period. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Valencia dispute

Hi Valentinian, ¿How are you?

I would like to ask you to take a look a this (Talk:Flag of Valencia). A user is engaging in edit wars about the proportions 2:3 Vs 1:2 . I have replied to him with some sources and references, but he keeps reverting. Based on your great knowledge in heraldry and vexillology, I ask you to give a second opinion. Thanks. --Maurice27 11:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks. Hope you're the same. I've replied on the talk page of WP:HV. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dolph

Is the actual character the notable part or is it the various pieces of media as a whole? There is no reason to extend the notability to the character if it can be summed up elsewhere. TTN 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dolph character was originally intended as a minor sideshow figure in both the Wulffmorgenthaler cartoon strip and the tv show of the same name, but events didn't go as planned. During the 1980s and 1990s, Denmark witnessed a very large number of debates centering on racism, antagonism towards foreigners, problems with second and third generation immigrants, daisy-chain immigration and immigration from Middle Eastern countries (these events predate 9/11 but things got worse after that event). Many Danes saw the Nyrup Rasmussen administration's immigration policy as an open gateway for immigration of people with little or no qualification for contributing to Danish society and economy, at a time when Denmark experienced high unemployment. The Danish political system split down the middle on the immigration issue and political rivalry got very tense. One result was the rise of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party which former Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen tried to ridicule and isolate in Parliament, but these attempts were a failure. The two cartoonists Wulff and Morgenthaler sympathised with the PM in this respect and created the Dolph figure in order to ridicule everyday "small scale" racism by creating an unprecedented charicature of a totally "far out" racist. At first, they thought they'd failed in this respect seeing that many readers / viewers apparently sympathised with him. An additional reason for the figure's popularity was that it was introduced shortly after Danish courts began enforcing a newly added anti-racism clause in the Danish Criminal Code (§ 266 b) that restricted public outbursts of racism, so many Danes began replacing minor racist comments with Dolph quotes in order to circumvent the new law. But the underlying problem was political disagreement about the future Danish immigration policy, and controversy over whether Denmark should be a mono- or multicultural society.

Some opinionmakers and columnists lobbied for the network to scrap the TV show and the debate spread to the newspapers' debate pages. Many defences of the figure would cite Denmark's very liberal application of free speech and secondly that Dolph was so outrageous that although most people would admit to having held similar opinions from time to time, his behaviour was so extreme that its mere presence caused readers / viewers to reflect on themselves and their own behaviour. So although Mikael Wulff and Anders Morgenthaler were both depressed that the character had actually become popular, they belatedly achieved the desired result; people began questioning and distancing themselves from "small-scale" racism and racist jokes. I think it is safe to say that Dolph was the most controversial figure in modern Danish media. An article on the Danish immigration debate would be quite relevant, but I'm not aware of any proper scholarship concerning these heavily-politicised debates, so any such article would unfortunately be very close to complete OR. In addition, since the character can still be encountered on the webpage of Danmarks Radio, I think it is a good idea to let others know that it isn't simply a Danish ripoff of the Moomin. Due to the physical similarity of these figures, it is one of those comments that one hears from time to time. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for taking the time to update a better quality picture on the article on Max Hamburger (an article I once begun) on Wikipedia-nl. Best wishes, MoiraMoira 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:India-tv-stub

Please consider reverting your deletion of the notice added to the template article page. Note: it was NOT added to the template itself, just to the article page and it followed the pattern of Template:stub

The inserted code you deleted was:

<noinclude>''This template will categorize articles that include it into [[:Category:Indian television stubs]].''</noinclude>

The template pages themselves need to be expanded to better expain how they work and how to use them, not simply to be a display copy of what the template will look like when place on an article page. I agree that the template itself needs to be kept simple, NOT the template article page! If you subst the template you will find that the noinclude info is NOT part of the actual template. Please take some time and read up on how the template pages actually work and how the noinclude fuction works. Thank you

PS I hope that this did not come off as harsh. Wikipedia is very complex and even after 50,000 edits it is very possible not to be aware of each and every function within it. I know that I have only scratched the surface of the inner working of Wikipedia my self and have much to learn about how it works. Thank you for your countless additions to Wikipedia. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I do follow some of your logic, but based on that logic it would appear to me that a change in how the template pages are handled is in order.

It was interesting that the only template I happen to pick as a guide, which was the father of all templates Template:stub was the only one coded in that fashion.

If the fear is that someone could edit the template and damage the sorting process (which is a valid fear) then all the templates should be protected and locked allowing only admins, or some limited set of members dedicated to the stub sorting project, to edit them.

The specific edit in question was not (is not) the problem. But it opens up the issue for others to edit and if the noinclude function is not used correctly then the template itself could easily be damaged.

There is a technical difference between the template itself and the template article page, but it appears that the consensus is that they should be one and the same, with only the actual template and the category that the template page belongs to being coded on the template article page.

Additionally it appears to me that there is no consistancy in how the templates are actually coded. (This base on my very limited inspection, which could be, like the previous choice, just chance that I find the ones that are different)

Example Template:Asia-trade-union-stub

The word stub is linked to Wikipedia:stub the category is Category:Asian trade union stubs but if you look at Category:Asian trade union stubs the suggested template name is: Template:Asia-labor-org-stub which is simply a redirect name. It would appear to me that category is listing the wrong name to use as the primary template name.

It would, on the face of it, appear that Asian trade union stub and Asia-labor-org-stub would be two different categories or possibly one being a sub-category of the other, yet in this case they are one in the same.

Example Template:Honor-stub

The word stub is linked to Wikipedia:Perfect stub article which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal stub article the category is coded in the following different way: [[Category:Fraternal and service organizations stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]] I do understand the logic used here, but why then does it not apply to all templates.

Now that category does list more than one template that feeds into it including this template

I would have hoped that the templates would have been more consistant in their coding.

Well, I have gone on for far too long on the subject. Thanks again for your reply Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. First of all, I agree, you are quite correct that the coding isn't identical all way round. The problem is that if we create a meta template to which all stub articles would link one way or the other, this would mean that 400,000+ articles would in some way be connected to the same template. Although unlikely, there is a slight risk that something could one day go wrong with such a template, and that could affect hundreds of thousands of articles. For this reason, WP:WSS has so far rejected the idea of giving the stub sorting system a universally applying meta template. Implementing such a master template would also imply the re-coding of c. 1,000 stub templates, and I don't think anybody is in the mood for so much work compared to the relatively small benefit this would produce. The unfortunate drawback to this situation is that the coding can come off a bit inconsistently from time to time. When we create new templates / categories, stub sorters normally take the code from an existing template / category, but again, this means that the code can differ a bit from time to time, although most the finished results normally look alike. The closest we get to fixed standards are some of the examples used on the various <country>-stub / <country>-bio-stub and <country>-geo-stub templates. One reason why the code differs from time to time is that opinions differ a bit about which type of code is the easier to read. I personally find the code used on {{Politician-stub}} easier to read than the one used on {{Stub}} but that's my personal opinion.

Thanks for telling me about the trade unions mess. You're right, the category pages should have referred to the currently used names, but these templates were renamed en masse half a year ago, and somebody apparently forgot to update the affected category pages. I've fixed this issue now. I've also updated the code on the {{Honor-stub}}. A number of stub templates were originally under full or semi-protection but WP:WSS generally removed it a while ago as many of the templates in question weren't actively used any more and virtually all of them were uncontroversial. E.g. {{Politician-stub}} once linked to many thousands of pages, but it currently links to a mere 50 with the other thousands distributed over more than 80 child templates / categories. Only {{US-politician-stub}} and {{UK-politician-stub}} are currently under protection, but it didn't make much sense to keep the old {{Politician-stub}} locked down as it is hardly used anymore.

The reason why a number of templates can use the same category is that we try to make a tradeoff between avoiding categories with next to no content vs. having as many templates as editors think makes sense. This means that we sometimes let two or more templates share the same category until the material grows so much that it begins making sense to give the templates more specific categories. Example: Category:Politician stubs used to be a monster completely out of control with thousands of articles. We started by dividing the material by continent and later split off most the larger countries. However, Category:African politician stubs was next to impossible to split into smaller units that made sense since most of these countries had very few relevant articles. On the other hand, we wanted to avoid a new overpopulated category. The result was that we created categories for the five regions that the UN divides Africa into and created templates for all African nations. These templates all feed into one of these five categories (e.g. Category:East African politician stubs), but having templates for all countries mean that stub sorters don't have to try to remember if it is Kenya or Sudan that has a specific template. When a template is used by more than 60 stub articles, we normally split off the material into a new child category, e.g. Tanzania has its own category - Category:Tanzanian politician stubs - since this material has 150+ articles, but the other East African nations don't since we don't even have 500 articles combined for the other 16 nations. The current system is a compromise between the old system (which was creating both templates and categories only when we had a high number of affected articles) and creating specific categories and templates for all countries although many of these categories would hold next to no content at all. I apologize that this became a long post, but I hope it made at least some sense as to why the current system is used. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy reply, and please do not apoligize for it. It was full of helpful information. Thanks for taking the time to detail it.

In case you were interested in why I was asking the questions, it is due to my involvement in trying to clean up Category:Education and also doing some work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized which of course involves the use of stub categories. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see others doing some of the less prestigious maintenance work :) Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Danish Barnstar of National Merit
		For your large and tireless efforts on Denmark-related articles, I award you this barnstar. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyrgyz public domain template

Hi, I saw that you added the {{PD-KG-exempt}} to Image:Alykul_Osmonov_on_200_som_note.jpg, but I'm not sure whether the rationale given applies. I see two possible issues:

• It implies that the cited law probably applies to images of currency, but it's not 100% clear.
• While the template states that the listed things are PD within Kyrgyzstan it only raises the possibility that such a release applies internationally. Given that Wikipedia is much more strict about avoiding non-free images than it used to be, are you sure it's reasonable to use that template in general?

I suspect that similar discussions have already been had about the general points I'm raising, so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been well covered. I just wanted to bring it to your attention since I saw that you added the image and was involved in creating the template. Regards, Hux 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hux.

Thanks for your post. As far as I understand the current consensus, Wikipedia normally follows local laws in cases of government works. The Kyrgyz law is a result of the previous Soviet copyright law, and all 15 successor states to the former Soviet Union have related copyright laws. Similar clauses applying to state symbols exist in other countries as well, see my list for heraldic material. I'm not 100 % home in international copyright law, but you might wan't to ask User:Lupo on Commons, I believe he is one of the persons around that knows the most about international copyright law. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll see what Lupo thinks, but in the meantime I reckon it's probably safe for me to go ahead and put the same tag on the other Kyrgyz monetary images I added. Cheers! -- Hux 07:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the request. I think I went a little overboard there. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 11:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Orthodoxy in Italy

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Orthodoxy in Italy, by Pare Mo (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Orthodoxy in Italy fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

to move History of the Orthodox Church in Italy here.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Orthodoxy in Italy, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ret- & Velfærd

Angående artiklen om Folkebevægelsen Ret- & Velfærd. Din personlige uvidenhed og modvilje mod enkeltpersoner fra bevægelsen er ikke et gyldigt grundlag til at føre hetz mod den. I maj indeværende år var der et interview i Sjællandske med landsformanden, og bevægelsen holder landsmøde til oktober. Hvis man kigger på hjemmesiden vil man kunne se, at der er adskillige lokalafdelinger i landet. Flere end Liberalisterne har (og muligvis også flere medlemmer). Det er korrekt, at landsdækkende medier ikke bruger mange kræfter på bevægelsen, men prøv at spørge redaktionen på TV2-Øst om personkredsen bag bevægelsen, eller ret en henvendelse til Forsvarsministeriet, Indenrigs- & Sundhedsministeriet (Lars Lykke), Socialministeriet, Justitsministeriet, Statsministeriet eller Folketingets Ombudsmand, mht. personkredsen bag bevægelsen. Det er ikke et enmandsparti som f.eks. DFLD. 80.197.57.23 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to commenting in English on this project, if you please. Most users here find the use of other languages offensive. Regarding the article; I have not preference for or against this party - if it even exists, that's not the point. The point is that its existence cannot be confirmed according to Wikipedia's standards for measuring such things. Google gives a total of 6 hits: 2 are from Wikipedia, 1 is from a blog, 1 is from a webpage belonging to the Progress Party and 2 are from the webpage of this presumed political party. This is way under Wikipedia's policies about notability and verifiable information. This the crux of the problem, and as you can see from the editing logs, I'm not the only editor that came to this conclusion. I've also listed the same article for deletion on the Danish Wikipedia, as I don't believe an article about it is notable there either. Have a nice day. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the submitter of the original Danish article, which was merely an initial article and should be treated as such. As a stub. I've been busy with college project so I'm taken by surprise here. I hadn't expected all that trouble and consider the English article quite premature (apart from being badly translated - I'm tempted to delete it just because of that). I'll need some time to clean up this mess and figure what has been going on. This includes IP-comparison here at the English Wikipedia, and at the Danish Wikipedia and at the website for Ret- & Velfærd. I will also see what I can do in regard to notability and will - at some time - post information on the talk page for the article so somebody can formulate it in fluid English. That'll be all for now - I'll be back when I know more about this mess ;) Dylansmrjones 15:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Schleswig-Holstein

Hi Himansaram

I noticed your edit to the First Schleswig War article describing the blue-white-red flag of Schleswig-Holstein as not contemporary. AFAIK, the same tricolour was used by the secessionist administration during the 1848-50 war. See also: [4] (section: Civil flag / Landesflagge). I also heard it referred to as such when Queen Margrethe visited Schleswig many years ago, but if you know of any other flag used by this administration, I'm all ears. Btw, have you checked the Prussian flag? It was the only image I could find that matched the painting shown on Battle of Jasmund, but it doesn't seem to be supported by {{Country data Prussia}}. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Valentinian. I'm on a bit of a flag crusade at the moment, removing flags that are used out of their context. I know there is a lot of opposition to using flags at all in infoboxes, so their incorrect use gravely undermines the cause of us who like to have them there.

I did some rudimentary research before removing the Schleswig-Holstein flag, but it wasn't enough apparently. Feel free to put it back (or I'll do it when I come around to it.) Sorry that my crusade claimed an innocent victim!

On the Prussian war flag - we could add it to the country data template as alias-war. It doesn't seem to be the only Prussian war flag, though. See for example [5]. --Himasaram 07:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Prussian situation is indeed confusing. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the different flags. Anyway, I've restored the Schl.-Hol. image on the First Schleswig War article. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the odd comment on my Talk page. Unfortunately, I logged off a few minutes before his comment arrived or I would have granted his wish to be blocked. Oh, well. Thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Illustrated London News

I'm afraid I don't know of any websites of their material. However, I'll see what I can do tomorrow about getting a few. It might end up taking a bit, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Message on Danish Wikipedia

Hello Valentinian. I have a message for you on your Danish account. mvh --Rasmus81 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replied there. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Denmark GA review

Thanks for the feedback Valentinian. I may have a go at the lead myself - I do what I can to help articles I review pass GA where it's feasible, but obviously with what's left it needs someone familiar with the subject to properly source it, so that's a bit beyond me ;) I'll give it a couple of days then leave a message for Lilac Soul suggesting delisting the nom, unless (s)he wants to have a go at the sources. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you this barnstar for your diligence in editing Denmark-related articles. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 14:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What a nice surprise. Thanks a lot. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Valentinian, I believe that you should run for adminship. You have the skill & experience to do so. I will nominate and/or vote for you if you give me the go-ahead.Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Laleena, but I have never had any real interest in adminship and I don't have the time to read up on policies and such. I appreciate the thought, but all in all, I'll have to recline this offer. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You would have got my vote, even more so since you have the good sense to not accept a nomination ;) Thanks for the good work you're doing on scandinavian-related articles, happy editing Finnrind 00:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :) Actually, this is not the first nom I've turned down. Never say never you know, but I don't really have any massive need for the tools. Although it does annoy me from time to time that I'm not able to edit protected templates. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic throne

The fact that there was an Icelandic throne and a succession does exist if the throne were still extant is valid for terms of noting possible pretenders, regardless of your emphasis/italics on one part and dismissal of another. Really, is there much of a monarchist movement in Hanover or Prussia? It doesn't matter if it was a willing dissolution, abdication or not, there exist would-be heirs to the Icelandic throne. Honestly, we can't tailor articles to the taste of any given group. If they think I'm a Danish chauvinist, they should note that I'm Canadian. Their loss for any assumptions, really. Please, keep your feelings away from other people's constructive edits. I mean that as politely as I can possibly muster. The Danes and Icelanders don't own the articles on Danish and Icelandic royals. Charles 08:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No and neither do Canadians. But Danes are the ones that will be on the receiving end of some less-than-flattering remarks if this empty claim stays. I've replied on Talk:Pretender. Iceland doesn't fit here, and I would like to see proper sourcing that the word pretender is generally applied so lavishly as is suggested on that page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have little faith in Icelanders keeping a neutral attitude at verifiable information (ie, where the Icelandic throne would have gone if not abolished under the pre 1953 succession). The proof is in the pudding. Note the application of the word to the various individuals on the page, regardless or not of them pushing their claim (George Frederick of Prussia, for instance, says that it is not up to him to be German Emperor and King of Prussia, but he is a pretender). Charles 19:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's business isn't to invent fictional monarchist movements. Apparently you didn't believe me when I stated that Icelanders are touchy on this issue, since they are a young nation. However, this is not a problem here, as it is and has remained official Danish policy to have a good relationship with Iceland, in contrast to the former union which had a very bad relationship between our two peoples. If you wish to tag Frederick IX and Prince Knud as pretenders, then I must demand to see either a Danish or Icelandic source describing either of them as such. Or a source from a work of recognized scholarship. Otherwise this is merely original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Christian X ceased his claims to Iceland and they were not revived either by his heirs, by Danes, or by Icelanders. Consequently, these "claims" have been dead since 1944. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with monarchist movements! It is not Wikipedia's business to CARE who or who is not touchy. This is English Wikipedia, not Danish or Icelandic Wikipedia. Take those concerns to those Wikipedias. The claims have been dormant since 1944. The Danish succession pre-1953 is clearly known and the Icelandic succession is tied to it. The King of Iceland according to the pre-1953 rules and pre-1944 would have been Knud in due time. That is the concern of successions to non-existant thrones, that is, who would be, not who should be, who must be, etc etc. Again, your personal feelings about Denmark and Iceland are just that, your personal feelings. If you really want to be humoured, I could assure you that after Frederick's death, Iceland would have had its own king, not the King of Denmark. Charles 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone did claim the throne of Iceland that would likely be quite amusing and I would be all for documenting it on Wikipedia. But unless you have a reliable source describing someone as a pretender I don't think it's appropriate for inclusion in our articles. Haukur 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people are interested in "contrafactual history" as well as history (I am). The what ifs and so on... This case is an interesting case to debate, but wikipedia is not that forum. Here information has to be a fact and it has to be previously published by a reliable source. Tagging possible pretenders to a non-extant kingdom of Iceland does not meet those criteria. Inge 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The last post I will make on this page is consistent with all others I have made: The Icelandic succession up to Knud, pre-1944, is verifiable and well known. That is what made him the titular King. Charles 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things speak volumes in my book: 1) The Dano-Icelandic treaty of union was valid for 25 years only, and this was decided in 1918. Consequently, it expired by 1943 or early 1944 as Denmark couldn't renegotiate the treaty and Iceland had no interest in doing so. 2) All titles save "King of Denmark" carried by Danish monarchs from 1864-1972 were titles of pretence. Frederick IX deliberately didn't carry the Icelandic title and he erased the falcon from his coat of arms upon assuming the throne. But why not then already in 1944? Because the coat of arms of the crown prince is the same as the arms of the king, and Christian X didn't change his arms before his death three years later. He very likely kept the falcon for sentimental reasons, but he never challenged the Icelandic republic. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all true. That's not to say that Icelanders were completely unanimous in what to do. When Denmark was occupied in 1940 the non-Socialist parties of the Althing met in a secret session and discussed the situation. The final decision was to declare that since the king and the Danish authorities were unable to perform their duties to Iceland the government would take them over "að svo stöddu". Those three words mean "under the present circumstances" or "for the time being". A minority of the members of parliament wanted to omit these words, in effect seceding from the union and declaring a republic then and there. This proposal was rejected with 6 votes to 35. In the following years there was a debate in Iceland between those who wanted a "fast divorce" with Denmark (hraðskilnaðarmenn) and those who wanted a "legal divorce" (lögskilnaðarmenn). Haukur 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

<- (resetting indent) Interesting, thanks for your post. I've heard that one more thing that sealed the issue was Christian's stubbornness about not changing a thing as long as both Denmark and Iceland were occupied by foreign powers. Apparently that remark fell on stone ground in Iceland. Nobody ever accused Christian of being flexible. If Denmark hadn't been occupied by Germany, history's record of him would have been quite negative, but during a hostile occupation, Danes felt that a stubborn old maintainer of tradition was just what the doctor had ordered. ;) As I remember the story of the events in Iceland, Iceland held a referendum before the 1944 declaration. You don't remember the figures by any chance? Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

74,091 people had the right to vote and 73,056 used that right. 71,120 voted in favour of secession, 377 voted against. There were 805 blank votes and 754 invalid votes. The support for the new republican constitution was somewhat smaller but I don't have the exact numbers. Danish citizens in Iceland were enfranchised.

I haven't been able to find the text of Christian X's telegram. It seems to have been short and to the point - like the one he sent to Hitler ;) Haukur 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the figures. I think I see why Christian X accepted the result after all. I haven't been able to find the full text of the telegram either. The reference I can find states: (citat) "Den 17. juni 1944 udråbtes da Republikken Island på Thingvellir, hvor det første islandske Alting forsamledes i år 930. Stillet over for kendsgerningerne overvandt Christian 10. sig selv og sendte om eftermiddagen en telegrafisk meddelelse, hvori han trods sin beklagelse over, at "Adskillelsen melllem mig og det islandske Folk er blevet gennemført under de raadende Forhold", dog udtalte "de bedste Ønsker for den islandske Nations Fremtid." Altinget kvitterede med afsyngelsen af den danske nationalsang [jeg formoder, der menes "Kong Christian" her, V] og markerede derved, at grunden var lagt til et venskabeligt forhold mellem Danmark og det nye nordiske broderland, Republikken Island." (citat slut). (Bo Lidegaard: Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, IV, "Overleveren 1914-1945", Gyldendal, side 561). Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, when voting for secession a small majority may not be enough to get the job done - as the Faroese were to learn two years later. Your telegram text has enabled me to find a full Icelandic translation: "Þótt mér þyki leitt, að skilnaðurinn milli mín og íslenzku þjóðarinnar hefir verið framkvæmdur á meðan svo stendur á sem nú er, vil ég láta í ljós beztu óskir mínar um framtíð íslenzku þjóðarinnar og von um, að þau bönd, sem tengja Ísland við hin norrænu löndin, megi styrkjast."[6] So, yes, he did express his regret that the separation happened "under the present circumstances". Nevertheless the telegram was received with relief in Iceland. Haukur 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I actually think that I understood the entire text. Since we have material covering the Icelandic elections to both parliament and presidency, it is a shame that we don't have similar articles for the two referenda. The Christian X of Denmark article would also benefit from more information about his troubled relationship with Iceland. Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:User: Wiki Gestapo

I've consulted the case with some other admins and he has been blocked (no autoblock, though - he just needs to register a new username). Feel free to raise such issue using talk pages in the future (and I got an error replying to your email, too).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Regarding my mail account, I received a mail through the system from another user minutes ago, so it *ought* to be working. (Never trust a smiling computer). I have no problem with this person editing using a more normal username. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TRNC-stub

Hi V - you wrote: Is it deliberate that you only protected the -geo template but not TRNC-stub?

I thought that had already been protected by whoever deleted in after SFD. I'll fix it now.

Btw, just to be sure I understand you right regarding the -politician templates; I presume that your post means that I don't have to do a count for all the potential <country>-politician-stub templates?

That's pretty much right. If they're only upmerged templates, a count's nowhere near as important as for separate categories, and if the scheme's to have one for every country anyway, then a count's not really needed. Happy editing to you, too! :) Grutness...wha? 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. Added the deletedpage template, but forgot to actually protect it! Should be fine now. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Denmark

Thanks for sorting out the tags on the talk page - I just remembered I forgot to do that, and went to the article to remove the GA hold tag (although I delisted the nom from the GAC page a few days ago). Sloppy of me :P EyeSerene^TALK 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on yourself. You're doing a nice job. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: bio templates

Thanks for the comments, I have corrected the Solomons and added Seychelles and Comoros. I deliberatly left out Macau and a number of other countries as I know in the past 'discussions' have taken place as to what is a country and so I decided in the first wave to play safe. If it is a member of the UN then it is a country. I may well mmove on to others later such as Macau, Gibralter, Vatican City etc but for now this is enough. Waacstats 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Belarus Scouting

Thank you so much for your interest in this in particular! It's nice to have someone so versed in heraldry and vexillology on board. My personal interest (based on what I usually post to the GraphicsLab) is Scouting where it is or has been suppressed, preserving that history for a time they will want to know what has come before. I appreciate your work to that end. Chris 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Luksuh 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bellanca Skyrocket.jpg

The photo in question must have been mixed up. This is the photo that was being described. FWIW Bzuk 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Ok. Thanks for checking it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Greenland

Hi, sorry for only answering now, but that thread was big so I had problems looking for news :P Unfortunately, I don't have any sources for that "voyage". What I had listen was not from any respectable source. I heard that king Afonso V of Portugal proposed to king Christian I of Denmark a jointly voyage of exploration, and that from Portugal participated João Vaz Corte-Real and Álvaro Martins Homem. But nothing from a respectable source (mostly internet sites, I think, I can't remember exactly. As far as I know, Gaspar Frutuoso in his "Saudades da Terra", says that Newfoundland was discovered by João Vaz Corte Real in 1472. Most historians think he confused João Vaz with his sons Gaspar and Miguel that explored Newfoundland and Labrador in 1501/1502. Coincidence or not, we don't know yet. This is the only source I have heard from this. I'm researching the Portuguese explorations and colonization in North America too, so if I find interesting information I will tell you. The Portuguese explorers often left a "padrão", landmark, in the places they explored. It was frequently a cross, made of wood or rock. See "Padrão" in the english wikipedia to see one. They were about as tall as a man. I'm looking for portuguese "padrões" in North America, as at least Fagundes seems to have placed them. If they were not found until today maybe they were fragile or were not discovered until now. Maybe the same had happened in Greenland. But you might also know that Lavrador (the portuguese explorer) explored Greenland between 1492 and 1500, so probably he left a padrão too.

Greetings, if I found something I will tell you.Câmara 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If I find something interesting in my sources, I'll let you know. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re. Thanks

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Regards, Húsönd 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Laleena

Hello, fellow Wikipedian! I am asking you to participate in the Laleena Userpage Contest. The person with the best design shall win at least one barnstar and work on any one-five article project. It would interest me greatly if you would submit a userpage design according to all of the criteria. Thank you for your interest. Laleena

I think you should ask someone more qualified than me. I am rubbish at designing webpages. Every bit of fancy code on my own is borrowed from somewhere else. :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stubs by country

Hi V - Thought you'd like to know that I've finished the list of "country"-specific geo-stubs at User:Grutness/Geo-stub list. That should give some sort of template to the -bio-, -politician- etc stub types. Note that there are a handful of countries that may need their templates changed to bring them into line with all the others before making too many templates for them (most are like the BiH one and just need a swap-around of redirects) - they're listed separately at the bottom of the list. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Danish-German stuff

Hi,

nice to have some comments. sorry i need a little more time, to answer your proposals on my site.

its difficult to see what you meen with your "Accuracy" tags. the articles are not perfect, but have a lot less faults. "Doing so constitutes vandalism and is not accepted by Wikipedia policy": im not making vandalism.

i looked and found a lot of often wrong or selected truth about germany, which lead to a wrong picture of the history, mainly german-hostility. Also this is often found, danish articles are surprisingly often german-hostile. It is not my thing to charge anybody, but even compared to the danish version of wikipedia, the english one is different in a german-hostile way.

i hope we find a solution and try to answer your proposals. W. -- Wispanow 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wispanow. I agree that these articles are very far from perfect, but an unsourced claim that Christian IX declared war upon Prussia - something that goes contrary to any Danish description of this war that I've ever seen - that was the main cause for the accuracy tag. In addition, I could only read part of your post as stating that Denmark was about to move into Schleswig by mid January 1864, which is not correct. The army had been dug in near the Dannevirke for more than a month. A third reason was a comment (possibly accidentally unclear) that the South of Schleswig had traditionally had a German majority. It is quite true that Southern Schleswig had a German majority by 1864, but this situation was relatively new. The land south of the Dannevirke had always been predominantly German, and the language switch in Schwansen was probably complete by 1790 or so, but the transition in Angeln was still recent back in the 1860s, and the population of the plains west of Angeln still spoke Danish. This language/loyalty switch in Angeln is the main reason why this dispute remains so controversial in Denmark. The second main reason is the following treatment of the Danish population in North Schleswig in the von Köller period. But on a general note, these articles need cleanup and more well sourced information, e.g. I seem to recall some general confusion regarding the troop figures. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I presume that User:Sasper, User:Broadbeer and User:Rasmus81 would be those Danish editors that know the most about these issues. You might wish to contact them. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

politician-stubs

Just a note to let you know that while creating some of the missing -bio-stub templates I have been creating the corresponding -politician-stub template as well. Should save a bit of work in that we should not have a situation where I tag someone with oman-bio-stub then you come along and change it to oman-politician-stub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waacstats (talk • contribs) 10:52, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that well organised. As I create a bio template I do the politician as well savesorting twice. I am not going through in any great plan at the moment just choosing whatever looks good!, though a plan would be an idea. I have done all the asian ones on my list of missing ones. Waacstats 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I think you've earned this...

		The Original Barnstar
		For your awesome work with Nils Olav, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Original Barnstar. --Sharkface217 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why thanks, but I don't recall having worked that much on this article? But it is one of Wikipedia's more unusual additions. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One Question

Hi Valentinian, I have seen your changings in the article "History of Schleswig-Holstein". I have just a question. In two articles on the german wikipedia (her: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch-D%C3%A4nischer_Krieg and her: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novemberverfassung#Folgen) I have read, that Denmark declared war on Germany the 16. january 1863. But: I have never heard that. Do you know, what really happend that day (16. january 1863)? I just know, that the German Confederation declared the "Bundesexekution" against Holstein, greetings (and sorry for my bad english..), --Katzenbär 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your English is fine. Replied on your talk page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)