User talk:Inge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I prefer to keep conversations on one talk page. As the size of this talk page has gotten out of hand before I will try to archive sections as the issues they bring up are resolved.


Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5



Contents

[edit] Your Shetland Bus reverts

Instead of simply stating "wikipedia is older" followed by some speculations and then deleting a copyviol-stub against the procedures recommended within the text of that stub, would you, please, stick to the rules and make use of the history of that page to see what was added and at what date! About 90% of the version to which you rolled back were just added a couple of days before by simply copying & pasting from the website under copyright mentioned with the stub. THX 91.64.3.185 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions anon. If you know which sections were alegedly copyvio why not remove them? Putting the entire article up for deletion is not constructive....Inge 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Inge. You might wish to check out {{Shetlopedia}} and Category talk:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Shetlopedia. It looks like Shetlopedia has changed its copyright statement a few days ago, but that still doesn't make them the owner of content created by their authors. The Shetland bus article gives attribution to Shetlopedia so it must be in the clear. Valentinian T / C 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I see. Might our anon above be a shetlopedia fan or even the founder?... I think making Shetlopedia "all rights reserved" is bad for the future of that project and a bit unethical with regards to the contributors. In addition to the legal matter. Inge 22:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It sounds likely that the anon is a contributor to that website. Taking a glance at it, it looks like they're particularly pissed that this article is displayed on Wikipedia, but I don't know why. I guess matters like these are better left to the copyright buffs. Valentinian T / C 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right. When I saw the template I thought a deletion of the entire article was an overreaction in any case, but the copyright buffs can take it from there. Inge 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, do you want to fool me? ;-) I was talking about copyright, UK copyright in particular. Valentinian: ... but that still doesn't make them the owner of content created by their authors. - right and that was never claimed, just the opposite was declared well having in mind that according to UK copyright which has it that If more than one person qualifies as an author then a work is one of joint authorship. In that case the permission of all copyright holders is required for acts that would otherwise be an infringement of copyright. (not my words, copied & pasted from en:WP!) That's just counteracting your approach based in your wiki-phylosophy, not supporting the rightfullness of your actions.

And again, please Inge, don't speculate: I'm not the owner of the said website - I'm co-editor and content manager of a none-British website about Scotland who was pointed to this matter by one of our (also none-British) contributors to our website. Further more - Inge ... is bad ... and a bit unethical with regards to the contributors. You are wrong again. I guess you can read ;-) so why not going to the website and look what's stated there? From the bits published (it seems that most of the discussions obviously happened in private) it is absolutely clear that the page owner / registrant of the site not only acted consensual with the contributors but following their demands.

What did 'your' folks in that situation? There was a local who had uploaded unique historical family papers for documentary reasons, stuff of a quality which is otherwise kept under Crown Copyright in some kind of archive. And your folks instead of asking and discussing with him how to make such stuff available for wikipedia accused him in public of breaching copyright law and violating of licencing rules which do not apply neither to him, his documents or actions nor to a website under UK copyright. That's boring and cocky. Sorry, but in which part of the virtual universe do you really live?

It is definitely not that tiny regional website risking GFDL, it is Big Mama Wikipedia behaving like Mr M$, hiding behind lashy US standards and corrupting third nations national copyrights. Mr M$ faced the bill from the EU commission today. It's definitely not my prob should wikipedia face its bill tomorrow. Cheerio 91.64.3.185 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon. I think most of your issues are better adressed to someone other than me or Valentinian. It seems you have some unresolved issues with wikipedia policy and/or leadership. I am not able to adress most of your issues. I would ask you not to direct you grievances in that respect to me. Inge 22:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No prob at all, Inge, you are welcome. I just ended up here because it was you who deleted the copyviol stub without any substancial comment or justifiable checks which might be in accordance with the 'image' I got from your own user page ... ;-) Ooops it's late, but I do hope you will understand what I mean. ;-) cheerio 91.64.3.185 23:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think so, but I can't shake the impression that you are trying to take a stab at me here.Inge 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Japanese heraldry

Hello Inge. I've proposed the deletion of the Japanese heraldry article. Since you were the creator and the main contributor I thought you'd like to know. My reasons are simple: 1) Content-wise, it's redundant with Mon (crest), and 2) Japanese heraldry and mon are one and the same thing in the first place. I hope this process could go smoothly. o 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see the article now is a redirect. Are you proposing to delete the redirect?Inge 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the redirect was made after my proposal for deletion; someone else beat us to it. The redirect is perfectly fine with me if you don't object. o 11:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with that :) Inge 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Would you revisit your WP:MILHIST assessment of HMS Ganges (1821)? I think you may have inadvertently given it the wrong quality rating, as you assessed it at 'B' level, but the article is quite short for a ship of 100 years' service, has no picture, no references, etc. Thanks. Maralia 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

done :)Inge 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks

Thanks for the excellent Barnstar, Inge. I'm honored. Manxruler 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ask for help

Would you mind add some references of the Inter-service decorations of the United States military?

Thank you.--东北虎(Manchurian Tiger) 08:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled...I know very little about this article's topic and I have not contributed to it as far as I know. I will look into this request when I get the time, but for now I don't know of any references to add. Inge 12:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House of Munsö

Hi Inge, I am having a discussion on the House of Munsö with user:Pieter Kuiper. He wants to remove stuff, while I want to keep in things that I find interesting. Please, join the discussion and give your opinion.--Berig 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 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 09:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Norwegian_Navy_Ranks.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Norwegian_Navy_Ranks.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hei

Hei Inge. Ta en titt her og si hva du synes. [[1]]Nastykermit 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Norwegian royal flags

Hello Inge, Thanks by alert me. I really don't know what version of the lion was used on the flag. I create another flag only using the lion of the COA of Norway. Do you think's better change by this lion? Because vectorize this picture from "zero" is tooooo hard for me... I don't know how do it :-P. The correct is someone with a high Corel Draw/Inkscape Knowledge do it. Att. — Guilherme (t/c) 15:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok — Guilherme (t/c) 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahh I see, thanks for correcting me. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre of Norway

I wonder what your opinion is on the subjects in Talk:Centre of Norway...? --Nidator T / C 22:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Royal coronations in Norway" article

I have made an article about Royal coronations in Norway and would like to hear you thoughts (suggestion for improvements, etc.) about it (see alsotalk page). -- Nidator T / C 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tak for beskeden

Undskyld det sene svar, men jeg synes at jeg render fra Herodes til Pilatus for tiden. Af samme årsag er jeg kun meget lidt til stede på Wikipedia for tiden, og når jeg endelig er, er det næsten udelukkende på den danske, primært med at rydde lidt op i artiklerne om danske sogne. Jeg har desværre mistet lysten til at bidrage i nævneværdig målestok til både en: og commons. Begge projekter lider af for meget nonsens og for mange tåbe(lighede)r. Tak for tippet om bogen. Biblioteket på Syddansk Universitet har en kopi, så når jeg får lidt mere tid, lyder det som en god gang hyggelæsning. Bemærkningen om at briterne helst havde undgået at gå i krig med København er interessant, og den passer med nogle senere bemærkninger fra krigen i 1864, hvor regeringen i København håbede at Storbritannien ville gribe ind og dermed sætte tyskerne i skak. Det var faktisk lidt mere sandsynligt at Rusland ville have interveneret, men Petersborg var optaget pga. den polske opstand i 1863, så Rusland var ikke interesseret i mere rod på vestgrænsen. Men hvad briterne angår, fandtes der kredse i London, der ville have Storbritannien til at intervenere og presse tyskerne væk fra Slesvig, motiveret både af ønsket om at holde Preussen i skak, men også pga. en følelse af at London skyldte København en undskyldning for begivenhederne under Napoleonskrigene. Når alt kom til alt valgte englænderne en play-it-safe kurs, nok også motiveret af at Dronning Victoria var pro-tysk. Det ligner dog en nærliggende tanke at Londons bondeanger kan have været medvirkende til at briterne fremlagde et for Danmark meget generøst forslag til deling af Slesvig (Slien-Dannevirke-Husum-linjen). Danmark burde have grebet det med kyshånd, men det blev i stedet afvist i København fordi halvøen Svansø og dermed dronningens yndlingsslot, Louisenlund, lå på den tyske side af delingslinjen. Udviklingen gik derfor dens skæve gang, først og fremmest til skade for sønderjyderne. I det mindste sendte englænderne klarere signaler kort før 2. verdenskrigs udbrud. Her indrømmede Churchill faktisk direkte over for overfor statsminister Stauning at England ikke var i en position til at hjælpe Danmark. Norge måske, men Danmark lå simpelthen det forkerte sted. Valentinian T / C 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Gider du gøre mig en tjeneste og kontrollere grammatikken og stavningen på den sidste sætning af bokmålwikipediaens artikel om Dannevirke? (Det er sætningen med Søren Telling). Mvh. Valentinian T / C 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Rune_Gjeldnes_in_Antarctica.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Rune_Gjeldnes_in_Antarctica.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Norwegian Army 2 batallion coa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Norwegian Army 2 batallion coa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oslo catholic coa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Oslo catholic coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Telemark bataljon vaapen.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Telemark bataljon vaapen.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trondheim catholic coa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Trondheim catholic coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Church of norway vapen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Church of norway vapen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by formation dates

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of countries by formation dates, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of countries by formation dates

An editor has nominated List of countries by formation dates, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by formation dates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the royal coat of arms?

I wonder if anything came of this? -- Nidator T / C 12:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC) ~

Ihave answered on that talk page.Inge (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for Scotland article

As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HNoMS "Kong" Haakon VII

Hi Inge. Just calling to give a note to that I'm going to change the article HNoMS Kong Haakon VII to HNoMS King Haakon VII. I've just gone through some of my sources and they all say King, the only source already listed in that article is a deadlink so I'm going to remove that, no offence. Have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Inge (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. All my sources are Norwegian, and all by people closely connected to the RNoN. They're the same as are used as in-text citations in the article. What sources did you find that used Kong? As far as I remember you only listed some WWII forum in the sources section. Manxruler (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've never actually heard of that ship being called Kong. A quick Google search revealed that Norwegian Wikipedia, not exactly noted for its reliability, uses Kong in its Look to Norway article, an article completely without sources. And then there's a naval fiction discussion forum and that's pretty much it. Manxruler (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dbb9 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1299

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eirik_II_of_Norway Above is one of numerous sites which give the death of Eirik II as 1299. Cant understand why you dont fix the glaring error on the site about Haakon's Hall.

[edit] 1299

Under the heading of Bergenhus Fortress, Haakon's Hall it is stated "...accession of king Eirik II in 1299,..." I edited this to read "...death of king Eirik II in 1299,..." which is consistent with my understanding of the historical records.

You have undone my correction. I trust this is just an automated procedure allowing for the fact that I have only registered today and am not an established user. If so, no doubt you will either re-instate or otherwise correct the information. On the other hand I should be most interested to learn if you do not agree with my correction!Dbb9 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Will you reassess the validity of my correction? See: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_II_of_Norway

[edit] Queen consort Isabel Bruce

On the list of Norwegian Queens the year of her death is not given, although on her own page it is noted that she survived Eirik II by 59 years.??? Dbb9 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Holberg

Hei Inge. Jeg som mange andre mener at Holberg var Nordmann og ikke 'Dansk-Norsk'. At Holberg ansees som grunnlegger av Dansk litteratur er en irrelevant. La oss huske at han dro til Danmark fordi det ikke fantes universiteter i Norge, han hadde intet valg.Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eg ser ikkje korleis dette er relevant for meg. Eg har skrive veldig lite av artikkelen og kan ikkje hugse at det er eg som har kome med påstanden om at Holberg var Dansk-Norsk. Når du likevel har skrive her kan eg tone flagg med det same og seie at eg ser på ordet Dansk-Norsk som akseptabelt for å omtale Holberg sin nasjonalitet. Hans "statsborgarlojalitet" gjekk til ein konge som var dansk og ein stat som i hovudsak var danskstyrt og han arbeidde i ein kultur osm var danskdominert. Hans "naturlege" nasjonalitet er sjølvsagt norsk, men å skrive berre norsk i artikkelen her på wiki vil berre skape konflikt. Inge (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms of Orkney

I just created this aticle, and thought it might interest you. -- Nidator T / C 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment of Flag of New Zealand - A class ratings and lead sections

You assessed this article as A-class, but unless the lead has gone down hill rapidly it's clearly not up to that standard. A-class ratings should not be given out lightly like this. Please read WP:LS to get an idea of what a lead should be like - for one thing the lead doesn't even mention the controversy. But even without reading the content one can see at a glance that it is undersized - there is currently less than one line for each page of article. Richard001 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inge benutzerseite

Hallo

Inge bist du diese Inge auch? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Inge

Können wir deine Benutzerseite haben weil Inge möchte Inge sein und du hast ja schon hier eine Inge benutzerseite.

Wir wohnen hier http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Inge_und_Carla du kannst uns ja schreiben. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Titles of House of Windsor

Hi.. I just saw this question. The titles have gone into abeyance, which means that heirs to the titles may petition Her Majesty (and, I think, Parliament) for reinstatement. None have done so. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what the titles were. Let me look... Duke of Albany was one.. aha!! Check out the Titles Deprivation Act. That'll tell you everything. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)