User talk:Inge/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Barnstar

I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your Scandinavian and history related contributions
I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your Scandinavian and history related contributions
I, --dave--, award you this BARNSTAR for your work in starting the Heraldry and Vexillology WikiProject. Well done!
I, --dave--, award you this BARNSTAR for your work in starting the Heraldry and Vexillology WikiProject. Well done!

Thank you so much! I hope it's allright if I move it to my front page, at least when the talk has to be archived? Inge 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. You can copy/move the code when you want. Skål : )
Angelbo 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Skål! Inge 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? --Comanche cph 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. Inge 20:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean it sincerly/ Jeg mener det oprigtigt. Angelbo 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And it is very well deserved. Congratulations. :) Valentinian (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both! :) Inge 09:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph

I would like to advise you against further issuing warnings to Comanche cph. Although you are correct, he should be warned, his personal attacks against you in the past and your current conflict with him can bias you while issuing warnings. In the future, please ask an admin or a third party removed enough from the issue to handle what you feel warrant warnings. If you do not know anyone removed enough from the case or cannot find anyone willing to, please ask me to look into the conflict.

I say this because the hostilities between the two of you will only be fanned from you issuing more warnings. Comanche might see the warnings from you specifically as a personal attack. Also, the warning against removing warnings is a template that should be rarely used. If he is removing warnings, alert an admin instead. This applies with most other cases as well.

I wish you further joy in editing wikipedia.

Good day.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well most admins I have come across in this case seem to be fine with issuing warnings indefinately. That is becoming increasingly frustrating for the editors having to deal with this user every day. I apreciate your advice, I have tried to explain why warnings are issued to Comanche cph. Allthough I see your point I believe the invent of the standardised warnings to be issued in well defined events make it more or less indifferent if it is me or someone else issuing the warning. If Comanche cph makes a personal attack just warn him of not doing so. If he doesn't want to listen well thats our problem. I realise it might be easier to adress me, but I ask you why did you not reissue the warning to Comanche cph yourself when you saw what was happening? Thank you. Inge 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Allthough that will create more work for everyone I will take your advice and try to report Comanche cph in stead, but if I deem a warning to be necesary I will most likely issue one in the future as well (nobody knows what he might think of next). Inge 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey ObitOne i don't that personal attack (witch not was on Inge) is user:Inge's problem with me ;o). --Comanche cph 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If he does not listen, then that is everybodies problem and I think it is best to prevent it from becoming to big of a problem.
Standardized warnings are made for well defined events, but the lines between warning, abuse of and using an elephant gun are a little harder to see than one expects. The reason I worry about bias is that one can use warnings as a way to enforce your own version of an edit unfairly. It is best in these cases to be either an observer and warn without entering the editing debate or be an editor and use academic debate and discussion to support your own edits. Thank you for taking my advice. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know now that the warning of not removing warnings is to be seldom used. I appreciate your involvement, but I really am puzzled by you priorities. You are most worried that I might use warnings as a tool for enforcing my POV? What do you think is more damaging to our community? Me giving Comanche a warning most people would have given or him running around labelling other editors as vandals, ignorant, narrow minded, nationalist, mountain apes and so on; insulting minorities; constantly revert warring and ignoring well founded arguments and sources. Worst of all: showing no sign of improval. He is no-longer a new editor, he is not a person of lesser insight. He is a rational and intelligent person causing big problems to our community. We need to treat him as such, and not make excuses for him. I think if you want to contribute towards resolving this mess you should take a look at Comanches edit history and start monitoring his edits. He interests himself on quite narrow subjects. That means there are few merited good editors to balance him. It would be very negative if he manages to get some of them fed up enough to leave or stop contributing to those subjects. I see many editors are hesitant to get involved with him already and I would be delighted if I could ignore him. But when I see a problem I have to deal with it. Inge 10:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I do wish to resolve this, but if you give out a lot of warnings which lead to his banishment, it would raise questions about the validity of your own edits from the conflict, which do not need to be raised. It is not a question of who is POV or not in this case, it is a question of practice, good practice and bad practice. I myself and others consider an editor handing out warnings in connection to an edit conflict bad practice, like a champion playing both defender and referee, or in court, one person playing both prosecutor and judge.
I honestly can see a conflict of interest in you handing out the warning and again advise you not to in the future. You only hurt the credibility of your own edits when you do and only strengthen that credibility when you do not. Please ask third parties to investigate and hand out warnings.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That point is taken. I would like to add that my arguments in an edit conflict should speak for themselves regardless of any warnings I have given for breaking wikipedia policies. My warnings will not lead to his banishment, his actions might. My point in the entry above was that I feel you are barking up the wrong tree when we have large problems with Comanche and you choose in stead to advise me on the minor point of warnings. What message do you think you are sending to Comanche now when you have not given him advice on his latest actions, but have given me this advice. Deal with the big problems first, when we have solved them we can go back and review if we handled everything perfect. I am not objecting to your advice, I am questioning your priorities in this case. Inge 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My priority is to help you develop a sense of editing ethics. CPH will be dealt with soon enough. There are a set of rules and processes the admins follow. You and I though are not privy to force their hands on this issue; cph is privy to force their hands on his perma ban.

Look, I understand where you are coming from, but to many editors give out warnings left and right and this makes a right mess. It is best for everyone on wiki if editors did not give out warnings when there might be a conflict of interest as a general rule. Here, there is a conflict of interests. Your interest in editing the article in the way you feel is best conflicts with keeping a level and objective mind when warning cph.

  1. His personal attacks on you in the past could have biased you, turning what you think is objective subective.
  2. If cph were banned, then it would make editing the article much easier for you.

That is why you shouldn't warn him, but others who are not involved or deeply involved with the article should. That way, the third person's interest in sound and fair warnings are not conflicted with that person's interest in editing the article since that person is not editing the article.

The best course of action you can take is message me or another person with what you object to and let them handle it for you. Then, instead of letting frustration get to you, read a book about the subject you are editing on an article. Do more research and come back with your new knowledge. This is far more helpful to wikipedia than warning other users.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and I choose to take them in good faith. But I am demotivated when you imply that I have no editing ethics. And when you ask me to read a book in stead of engaging Comanche cph. That comes across as quite condescending. If you had looked into the subject you might see what sort of information that editor is trying to get in. And since your engagement with me here in consierably heftier than your involvement with Comanche cph I must admit I have pondered quite a bit on what I could have done to make you think so negatively of me. Inge 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thank you so much for your kind words, they really mean a lot to me. I never imagined this kind of support due to this post. Lar has asked me to write a permanent essay out of it, and although I can't promise that I'll have time to do it soon, I think I will give it a try. The quote I mentioned was from User:Tasoskessaris, btw, whom I hold in high regard. History has been used for many evil purposes throughout the ages, but if we use the same tools in a better way, we just might be able to hear what our ancestors actually had to say. For example, I am pretty sure I know what at least three of mine would have said if they had taken part in our recent debate with Comanche. Thanks again and take care. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Flags / Heraldry

Thanks for the welcome :) With you, me and Fred, Scandinavia already looks probably pretty well covered. You're right, it is pretty surprising that it didn't exist already, and it *is* a definite problem that the FOTW images are being trashed. I looked through your list of links and it looks pretty comprehensive. It was a nice surprise that Portal:Heraldry already exists, and somebody has actually listed one of my articles there (you can guess which one).

The first thing that jumps to my mind has to do with the template to the talk pages of heraldry-related articles. {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} is nicely formed (and it is a good idea just to have a generic COA image) but the name is a bit tough to write. What about "Template:WPHV" as a redirect or perhaps "Template:WPFlag" in order to be extra user friendly?

A second thing that jumps to mind is that it would be nice to one day get some sort of order to the "Coat of Arms" vs. "Coat of arms" mess. AFAIK the latter form is now the accepted standard (although the A can be capitalized in the actual article headline). I have updated a number of articles to this naming format and made sure the "List of ..." galleries use it but I noticed that e.g. the Polish material uses capitalized A's. I know it is a minor matter, but it just annoys me. Btw, I found a reconstruction of Kristian Frederik's coat of arms as King of Norway the other day. I didn't know such a symbol existed but you probably know it already. The first insignia of Copenhagen University is also pretty interesting. (Hint: Erling Svane (2002): "I Skjoldet springe Løver", Odense. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can get in touch with someone who is able to recreate the flag images so they can be used on wikipedia.
Please do make the template and it's distribution easier. I am not so skilled in the finer workings of the software. I usually just copy and adjust things other people have done. Does one make redirects to templates in the same way as articles? I will try to get the template to include the articles in a project category as well.
I see I have used the capitalised A in some articles. I will change to the standard whenever I see the errors. The issue could also be posted on the project talk page so more are aware of it. The coat of arms of Kristian Frederik sounds very interesting. I imagine such an arms should have existed, but I have never seen it. I should try to get a hold of that book somewhere. :)Inge 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
A similar thank-you for the invitation. I greatly look forward to working on this project... Thesocialistesq 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Kristian Frederik, the illustration is on page 95, and this reconstruction was apparently borrowed from Poul Bredo Grandjean (1926): "Det danske Rigsvaaben", Copenhagen, but the drawing could have been better. Take a shield crowned by the crown of Christian V. The upper half shows the crowned Norwegian Lion with its axe, the lower half is devided in two; Left: Denmark, Right: The three crowns of Sweden. Unfortunately, Grandjean died as late as 1957 (grr). I once saw a TV show with the Queen and Piet van Deurs giving a tour of Amalienborg. During that programme, the Queen remarked about a signet located in Amalienborg that it was the signet of the Statholder of Norway and that Christian VIII had used it as king of Norway. This signet only showed the arms of Norway but the lettering around it had been slightly (and not so elegantly) changed in 1814. Alas, this is all I remember. The most recent research on the Danish and related arms has been conducted by Erling Svane. "I Skjoldet springe Løver" (2002) deals with symbols derived from the Danish arms. His first book "Det danske Rigsvåben og Kongevåben" (1994) is also very intersting. The latter was printed by Odense University Press, the former by "Syddansk Universitetsforlag" (same institution, new name). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you weigh in on AFD?

To be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian Golden Age. Mange takk! --Leifern 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added my view there. Inge 18:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Flag/heraldry WikiProject

I'm flattered that you would invite me, but I don't really have the time to dedicate myself to a WikiProject (if I did, I would already be a member of WikiProject California State Highways. But I'll try to help out if I get a chance. (By the way, I think it is a damn shame that the userbox for people interested in "flags and emblems" uses the Maryland flag. So ugly!) -Branddobbe 00:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Project... No Way!

I'm sorry, I would join but I wouldn't be able to contribute much as I'm to busy working on my project - WP:LUL. Lenny 07:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Monarch articles

Might be true, but we don't have any hard and fast rules and the consensus was for the moves. So. Just following the consensus. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Then repost it. You were the only no vote. If you feel like you can build a consensus to move them back, then great. Repost it. But I'm not going to undo these moves when it was a 3-1 vote. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replied on your talk page.Inge 10:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I hate being an administrator. This is one of those times. I get to now undo about 45 minutes of work. Why do I bother. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replied on your talk page.Inge 10:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My comments were not directed at you, trust me. No need to apologize. Anyway, I undid what I did. If I missed anything, let me know. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. Did I miss a whole bunch of redirects? --Woohookitty(meow) 11:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought I could do them for you so the work wouldn't be too much. Inge 11:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's very nice of you. :) Well I did the Olafs anyway. I was more mad at myself than anything. Probably should've let someone else handle it. Oh well. Live and learn. I've been an admin for over a year but I definitely don't have all of the answers. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it increased my edit count. lol So it's only at about 28,000 now. I need a life. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Orkney situation

I'll take a look tonight. My plate is a little full at the moment but I'll see what I can do. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well. The sockpuppet of Mallimak was blocked indefinitely mostly because of the AN/I report. So that's one thing. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else can be done. It looks like Mallimak is using 129.153.x.x, 129.154.x.x and other ranges. The problem is that he's using what's called a dynamic IP. It just means that every time he logs on, he's assigned a different IP. So it's extremely difficult to stop him. I don't know if you know the term but it's like playing Whack a Mole. As soon as he starts using one IP and it's blocked, he starts using another one. So unfortunately, as far as he is concerned, all we can do is look for warning signs that it's him. I would recommend listing him here along with all of his known sockpuppets. It's the long term abuse page. I always figure that the more eyes there are watching users such as Mallimak, the better.
As for the dispute itself, how long does this go back? I'm really wondering if you should try mediation at this point. Requests for comment can be helpful but it looks like this one is falling on deaf ears. And I'm not sure that opening another one would do you alot of good. You'd probably end up with 2 ignored RfCs instead of just one. You have several mediation choices. Here is where you go to request the more formal mediation procedure. Here is where you go for the informal procedure. I'd recommend reading the pages and deciding what you want to do. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Denmark during WWII

Hi Inge

If you have a moment, I'd really appreciate if you could take a peek at Talk:Axis Powers. We seem to have reached a gridlock with people disagreeing on how to properly describe the status of Denmark during WWII (or how to structure the page, which countries to include etc.) Any input from you would be greatly appreciated. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a peek and written some long rant-like entries describing my general impression. I believe an entry describing Denmarks complexe role under the Axis umbrella is in order, but I won't oppose a complete removal either. Allthough I think giving up because of the problems that have occured is conseding to the critics of wikipedia. The proposed text could be a basis for an entry and I have made a couple minor changes that might make it more edible for all. I am though a bit conserned about the general impression my comments might give people of my views so if you have any comments on that they would be appreciated. I hope they don't come across as a critique of Denmark. It is very difficult to convey such comlex issues in writing. Inge 11:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. I noticed, but I was in the middle of a big edit so I just wanted to finish converting the references :) I don't know what's worse, the war or the references syntax. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I will be happy if we are able to put the proposal on the article page without the conflict breaking out again. :) Inge 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking about WWII before :) But it would be nice to lay this dispute under a nice big slab of concrete. A few hundred tons or so. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Btw, if you are making a list of your articles, I noticed that Eidsivating is missing. Cheers. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will soon post a rudimentary stub on United States heraldry and hope it will inspire someone else to make it good :) Have a look when it appears. Inge 11:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

List of states by self-determination

You have changed the date of self-determination of France from 1815 to 1944. I don't agree with the date 1944, because most of the French colonies never belonged to pro-German territory during the WWII. 1815 is arguably a loss of self-determination of France, because emperor Napoleon was replaced by king Louis XVIII after the conquest of France by coalition forces.--Daanschr 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who had the practical controll over the colonies is not relevant here. The article itself states Self-determination is lost when foreign interventions result in complete occupation or a change of leadership. The leadership of France changed as a result of the occupation by Germany and then by the liberation by the Allies. Inge 11:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That would apply for 1940 and not for 1944. In 1940, Pétain was not acknowledged in the whole French Empire. Charles de Gaulle started the Free French movement, which combined most of the French colonies. When i made up the defenition, you quote, i was thinking about change of leadership imposed by the occupier. Perhaps it would be good to enlarge the definition, otherwise all the dates of self-determination have to be reconsidered.--Daanschr 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Both in 1940 and in 1944 an outside force changed the leadership of France. I don't see how a colonial resident-generale or similar person's choice for allignment has any bearing on how to look on the leadership of France it self. The definition is good enough. If you want to change it because it is applied to France, then the relevance of the article it self is further reduced. To describe such a complex issue as a nation's independence is very difficult and to do so in list form is, well to put it nicely, a fun experiment. In my view the List of countries by date of nationhood is the best alternative as it illustrates the complexity while still being a good place to quickly look up and compare such dates. List of countries by date of independence and List of states by date of self-determination are in my view redundant. If you want to have a list of countries that have temporarliy lost their "self-determination" as the result of a short occupation then make such a list, but it is in my view wrong to use the dates of WWII as alternative independence dates in any case and in particular when it is employed arbitrarily. Inge 13:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right to be sceptical on my list. However, i don't agree that List of countries by date of nationhood is the best alternative. There are several factors that are not taken into account on this list.

  • A nation changes from generation to generation. It could be argued that a nation changes continuously and can't be caught in a couple of independence dates.
  • Migration considerably changes nations. Some nations have been overflooded by immigrants. This change is still less destructive, then the change from one generation to the other over time.
  • Several independence dates on the List of countries by date of nationhood are questionable. A whole range of other dates could be implemented. The will to become a nation often existed before the date of nationhood, how can it be determined if a date is right? Sometimes a state comes into being, but the nation appears later, because the segments being part of the state don't want to be part of this state.
  • What about all the nations that used to be, but are now gone? The List of countries by date of nationhood primarily describes nations existing at this moment.
  • What determines a nation? Is it only being part of a state, or does regional allignment, familyname, religion, language have to do with it as well? Are the present African and Arab states nations? The borders of these countries were shaped with a measuring staff by European colonizers.

To conclude, this discussion is a political one. Wikipedia is severely lacking in quality. I primarily contribute for my own pleasure and i would like to keep my article the way it was meant to be. The arangement of the states on my list are answering to rules, that are not correctly been defined. I know it is a weakness. You changed a single date according to other rules. I don't mind changing the rules, but these rules should apply to all the dates, so the list will not turn into a mess, but answers to my wish of standardization.--Daanschr 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly you have to realise that in the very same moment you press save on Wikipedia your work is no longer yours so if your enjoyment of wikipedia stems from being able to unilaterally decide how the articles you work on should be you have set your self up for disapointment. The article is not yours in any shape or form. I did not change a single date according to other rules. I changed it according to the rules stated on the article page. Self-determination is lost when foreign interventions result in complete occupation or a change of leadership. This rule was applied to Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg and others, but not to France and for that matter Netherlands. I believe the use of these occupation dates is a bad strategy as each one describes a very complicated situation. For instance Norway had not lost all of it's self-determination during WWII. The elected and free government was still in control of Norway's colonies, armed forces and merchant ships. And 1945 the only leadership that had been legitimate before during and after the war returned to mainland Norway. In France there was one leader until the Germans invaded, then the country was divided between two new leaders, then the Allies invaded and yet another leader was put in control of the country. In mainstream history these dates are not regarded as dates of independance or foundation, but rather dates of reliberation so they fit badly in a list togeather with old dates of foundation etc.
But my main point is that if you want to maintain this list with the occupation/liberation dates you have to have them on all relevant countries. So if you are to list Denmark as 1945 you have to list France as 1944. The definition as it stands now demands that even if you had something different in mind when you wrote it so a change there is not necesary. Inge 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the dates are questionable. I didn't know that Norway had colonies, allthough Svalbard probably remained Norwegian. I suggest to revert the date of self-determination of Norway to 1905. Denmark capitulated to Germany in 1941. Iceland was officially occupied by the Americans as a result of this, because it had become German controlled territory. Norwegian, Dutch and French colonies were left alone by the allies, because these were still free territories. There still was an area in the world where the Dutch, Norwegian and French flags were hanging from the governmentsbuildings. These three countries didn't entirely lose their self-determination. Your example of merchant ships is not right. Merchant ships can't claim the sea. The sea is either territory of a specific state, or it is international territory. I hope we can come to a synthesis of our views.

It was wrong of me to be honest to claim an article. I was merely expressing my feelings. Rules are important to obtain, even in the anarchy that is called Wikipedia. For me living up to the spirit of a rule is more important then precisely following a rule. My main enjoyment on Wikipedia is debating. I really like this debate.--Daanschr 10:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, debating can be enjoyable:). My bottom argument is that if you want the list to be credible it has to show consitency in dealing with similar cases. I am against using the WWII dates in such a list, but it seems then this list will be almost identical to the other two. So if you insist on using the WWII dates as alternative dates of independence/self-determination you have to use them on all relevant countries. Then you have to ask yourself in each case: Was the leadership of this country changed by the intervention of another country? Were the people actually controlling the country's territory (forget any colonies) different from who they would have been had the country been left alone? The answer is yes for Norway, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and many other countries. Though the situation was different for each of them. Norway had an elected government who whent into exile and continued as the only constitutionally legitimate leadership of the country throughout and until the war ended and they returned. But someone else had forcibly gained control over the mainland territory of Norway. In France the old leadership was ended, half the country was directly controlled by the Germans, the other half was controlled by a new French leadership and a fourth leadership established itself as free French leadership. After the war yet another new leadership was established by the Allied invation. In my view both of these examples are cases where the leadership or control of the country was changed by a foreign intervention. Inge 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why forget the colonies? Should i change the definition from 'List of states by date of self-determination represents states dated back to the last time when self-determination was realized. Self-determination is lost when foreign interventions result in complete occupation or a change of leadership.' to 'List of states by date of self-determination represents states dated back to the last time when self-determination was realized. Self-determination is lost when foreign interventions result in complete occupation without colonies or a change of leadership.'--Daanschr 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to discuss each date of self-determination with you, in order to get a consistent list, otherwise i will revert your edit.--Daanschr 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Any colonies is generally not relevant when discussing the independance of a country. It is the country it self that matters. A colony is generally not regarded as part of the colonising country. I know that the French tried to assert the notion that all colonies were France and all colonial peoples were French, but that is generally not how it was in practice.
If the government of a country has lost controll over the territory comprising that country, the country has lost self determination even if some colonies might choose to adhere to commands from that old government. In the case of Norway the country was occupied and lost controll over its territory (the colonies were still under controll by the exile government). In France an outside force resulted in a change of the leadership of France. The French Third Republic ended in 1940. I don't know if some of the colonies still held Albert Lebrun to be their leader, but some adhered to the orders of Vichy France and others to the Free French. This is not a problem if you rule out the end of a temporary occupation as an independence date.
So my view on spesific dates in these two examples are divided. If you insist on including the occupation\liberation dates on any other country I belive 1944 for France and 1945 for Norway to be correct. But if you agree that a short term occupation is of lesser relevance in the history of a country's independance the older, more conventional dates will have to be used for all countries. Inge 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What determines a colony? Is Kaliningradskaya a colony? Are the Falkland Islands a colony? Was Uzbekistan a Russian colony?

This is the introduction of the article colony:

'In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state. For colonies in antiquity, city-states would often found their own colonies. Some colonies were historically separate countries, while others were territories without definite statehood at the moment of colonization. The metropolitan state is the state that owns the colony. In Ancient Greece, the city that owned a colony was called the metropolis within its political organization. Mother country is the term used to refer to the metropolitan state by its citizens that live in a colony. Today, the terms overseas territory or dependent territory are preferred. There is a United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.'

The text in bold implies that we have to seek a definition for the term colony ourselves in order to make the List of states by date of self-determination consistent.--Daanschr 15:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A compromise: 'entire occupation' will be replaced by 'occupation of the capital'. I will then change all the dates accordingly. The next time someone wants to change a single detail that destroys consistency, then i will bring up a more sturdy defense.--Daanschr 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The term colony is today regarded by the inhabitants of most dependent territories to be derogatory so the terms overseas territory or dependent territory are preferred. I assume you want to determine what is and is not a colony? I think the definition you have quoted is quite good: a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state. So do you agree that we should disregard those territories when dealing with the date of self determination of a country?
I believe my edit improved consistency. You really don't have to change anything in the caption as it is generally not customary to include colonies as part of a country. That sort of defeats the purpose of calling something a colony. If you really want to assert that French North Africa was part of France and because of that France was not occupied then I don't know how an agreement can be reached. But I think we are talking past eachother i bit. My point on France is that a change of leadership applies to France as Vichy France was de jure not occupied by Germany. complete occupation applies to Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and so forth because the entire territory of the coutry it self was occupied. Looking at your definition this way consistency is better maintained in practice as all countries who lost some form of self-determination during WWII are noted by that date. Inge 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Algeria was not a French colony, but part of the French motherland. Millions of French citizens moved there and they left when the islamic insurgents won the war for the Algerian independence. It could be that you morally dissagree with this, but the NPOV rule clearly state that all views should be in an article in order to make an article NPOV. I don't agree this instance that Algeria was a French colony.--Daanschr 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't be pulled in to an argument over the status of French colonies/overseas areas. As stated before: France had a change of leadership as a result of a foreign intervention both in 1940 and 1944. You seem to be overly preoccupied with this particular entry. I was looking at the larger picture and found that similar entries were treated differently. If you use the WWII dates on some of the countries you have to use them on all relevant countries. Inge 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I will considerably change the format of the list. You may help editing by joining the discussion on the talk page of the article.--Daanschr 08:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Micronation Flag

Inge: I recently removed a link to Category:National flags from the page of Flag of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands because it is a micronation. Before I get all indignant towards User:GilliamJF for putting it back, I want to ask if I did the right thing; i.e. other micronations, due to the fact that they are not recognised by other countries, are not on the 'official' national flags page. (I ask you because your name is on its history page.)

Scoutersig 14:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that it does not belong in the category. National flag states A national flag is a flag that symbolises a country and that can usually be flown by citizens of that country.. A micronation is a project not a country. But a Category:Flags of micronations might be in order to prevent those articles from being outside any category. Inge 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you (and not just because you agree with me). I think I'll ask a few more people, and then take action. Again. Scoutersig 17:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)