User talk:HoJii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excuse me so much, i did a stupid thing leaving my computor on while i was away and i can see my little brother has been doing some vandalizing. I'm sorry about this. If there is any vandalizing again done by this user it's not me, just so you know. But i won't do the same mistakes in the future, this has actually happened before.HoJii – HoJii 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I suggest you exercise a little more care in future; persistent vandalism may well lead to your account being blocked even if you are also making good edits. Thanks for your understanding – Qxz 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Rus article it says that the warrior class called Rus possibly has scandinavian roots. Actually it's no doubt about it, many runestones can be found in Russia and the areas of were Russia was founded, and also there has been found, i don't remember if it was tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, coins from the Byzantine Empire and other southern parts of Europe, in Scandinavia, and over 95% of all of these in Sweden. The last thing I said is only prooving most of the eastern travelling scandinavians were swedes, however, it is very possible that the term Rus comes from vikings from the coastal area of Roslagen in Uppland in Sweden being called this. In the Varangian article there is also a map which is showing the varangians trading routs with them starting of in this exact area. So this is very possible a truth, aswell as a known theori, but still in all of the texts about Rus and Varangians it says were they might origin from and why they possibly could have gotten their name Rus. But this very, very possible known theory is not written anywere! Why would it say that the people called rus POSSIBLY had scandinavian roots when it says in other articles for sure, that the Rus was varangians, chased away "over seas" from the slavic and finnic tribes but then invited again to rule them. Wich sea could they have been talking about? Mediteranian sea? Not exactly, not the black sea either. They mean THE BALTIC SEA, were do you end up if you travell across the baltic sea from these locations, you end up in SCANDINAVIA, so Rus was chased back over the seas to their home origins of scandinavia, invited back to rule the slavs. THE RUS WAS SCANDINAVIAN! It is a fact, that for some reason, the Russians HATE to say that they origin from the vikings, and they are even trying to WORK AGAINST archeologists looking for old viking traces, archeologists has even lived under threats because of this reason. You even name that slavic scholars is working hard to try to find different origins of the Rus. Why would you write "possibly scandinavian" to respect these theories made up by these Russian so called "scientists" when they are so unlikely to be true? Saying that the Rus would be anything other than scandinavian is like saying that arian people are blond and tall and from scandinavia and germany. You have deleted every single text of mine, when i have written about this. Maybe i'm a bad author or something. I definitly think you (meaning the people working on wikipedia) should write about this attitude amongst russians somewere in these texts according to Russia, Rus or varangians, and also write about the Roslagen theory. My most important question of all this is; why would you respect the russian theories which is clearly made up in purpase of propaganda? Would be glad over comments on what i have to say.

The problem is that we have issues with original research. In order for a Wikipedia article to say something, we must be able to find independent, reliable, published sources to back it up. There is also the need to try to present issues from a neutral point of view. This is Wikipedia's most fundamental policy, and it means presenting all widely recognized viewpoints, in a balanced manner, wherever an issue is considered controversial.

Wikipedia covers many controversial issues; however, it is not the place to try to settle them. Discussion on talk pages should be limited to the content of the article itself and ways in which it can be improved, and should not become a discussion of the subject itself. Introduction of new, balanced material drawing from reliable sources should be welcomed – provided it is well-discussed first – however, any bias (or attempts to introduce a bias) towards either side of a debate should not.

The policy pages linked above should explain things in more detail than I have done here. Hopefully this is helpful – Qxz 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aight i get you. But you aperently didn't get me, but what can i do, your not gonna fix anything anyway.

I'm not going to get into an edit war on an article concerning a subject I know absolutely nothing about, no – Qxz 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dear Qxz tell me what i do wrong about the text of swedens time as a great power. Ive spent time on this text and i really would like to know this, i'm trying to fill the text out a little but you just keep deleting it. I thought of writing a little about all of the important kings and the important wars so that you can get a little better overall view, would that be a waste of time? Couldn't you just change a little in my text in a way you think would be better instead of deleting it, or at least tell me what kind of things i should fix.

In short, discuss large changes on the talk page first before making them, and read the policies that I linked you to. Thanks – Qxz 10:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder something, when your editing the Sweden-text my text is there, but when you read about it outside the editing thing, it's another text. What is that all about?

Caching issues. Hold down 'Control' and press 'F5' while viewing the page (in most browsers) to fix the problem – Qxz 10:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ey, i thought maybe my old text about this shit had to many details you know, which you anyway would have found if you clicked on one of the links, so i made a new text about the Swedish Empire were i tried to get a kind of overall view thing, you know. I am very satisfied with the text, but you can check it out. I also changed the Swedish political history text, because that old thing about magnus ladislaus uniting svear and götar after a battle in Västergötland is something made up by amateur historians, i don't even understand how you could have this on wikipedia. The first king that we know for SURE ruled over both svealand and götaland was Olof Skötkonung, and no proffesional historian would ever say anything against this. If you should show respect to both theories you should definitly highlight the last one, because the ladislaus theroy is not seriouse, very loose and not backed up by any historian.

[edit] Sweden

Hi Hojii -- Thanks for your additions to Sweden. I simply wanted to ask: are there any sources you could list for what you're adding? I recognize much of it is common knowledge, but Wikipedia tries very hard to provide sources, for a number of reasons. One is that, if we have sources, then the material can have a little more stability, so every new person doesn't simply say "Well I heard different" and put in something new. If you can provide any sources you've used, that will also help others work cooperatively on the material.

One issue also, just so you know, is that the article is already quite long, at 106 kilobytes. (See Wikipedia:Article size) You probably saw there are specific articles on several of the related topics, which may ultimately be where some of this material could go. Anyway, if you could let me know about the sources, I'd appreciate it. Maybe we could start a discussion on it at Talk:Sweden so other people who watch the page can be involved. Many thanks, Mackan79 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually i don't really know where to show the names of the sources. But i can tell you, that my sources on the "Sweden as a Great Power" text, has mainly been different texts from wikipedia, and some of what i know my self, but those things have been backed up by articles on wikipedia. For example, Rise of Sweden as a Great Power, Great Northern War, Charles XII, Charles XI, Swedish Empire, Swedish colonial empire, and the article about the battle of poltava which you have to search for yourself, i don't know why but i can't link the name of it to the real article. And a little tiny bit of imformation from this site http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/s3.htm but as i said, most of the stuff i have written i allready knew, but i could read about it here in wikipedia also. I guarantee you that if you try to look up these facts somewere else, they will be very accurate with what i have written. I don't really think a discussion would be any idea. Personally, I don't think that history from these times really are discussable, because i think all of the theories are pretty much alike. After all, it's not so far from today, and people made all kinds of paper documentations all the time. If you get my point. The only thing to be uncertain of is WHEN Sweden became an Empire, some say it was in 1560, and some 1611, i believe it was the latter because of something Charles IX said about Gustav II Adolf. But you can't really draw a line exactly from were it all began, I believe it was during Gustav Adolf's reign.

Sorry if i took a long time before answering this.

No, thanks for responding. Maybe we could add the Tacitus cite, even, wherever it came from. I'll have to look at it a little later. I appreciate the contributions; I hope you understand it's just good if we can get some sources in either way, for the reasons I mentioned and others. WP:ATT is the official policy. Anyway, I'll try looking at it later, but thanks either way for the response. Best, Mackan79 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, :) i suppose it's you, Mackan, that has been doing the changes of the Swe Empier text, i really liked the out come, thank you! :D I ive realized i may have to read a little more about rules and stuff of Wikipedia. I still don't know so much about it, even though i have been working on different articles a little while. I haven't bothered of reading all of these long texts. :P But maybe i will have to so that my texts can stay. Btw, I understand you have to be sure of that your sources are reliable and stuff, maybe you should be even a little more hard on these things. Thank you for improving my text! I still wonder though were to put out the sources, hehe

Hey, I did a little work on it, but it might have been someone else too. I'm glad to help, and I know there's a lot to pick up on here at first. I was actually just going to say following your message on my page: If you leave a message somewhere, just make sure you put the four tildes (This sign: ~) at the end, which leaves your signature, so people can tell it came from you (I get "Mackan79 16:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)" when I type that). This is good to do everywhere, even on your own talk page. Good luck, Mackan79 16:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx HoJii 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean for you to remove the comment. I just wanted him to know it was from you and not me. I agreed with what you said. Cheers, Mackan79 17:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i know, i just felt like removing it. :P If you wan't you can put it up again

[edit] Rus' (people)

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Rus' (people) are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! Khoikhoi 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)