User talk:Tskoge/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Tskoge/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 18:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome. Perhaps you could add yourself (i.e. your user page) to Category:Wikipedians in Norway? Punkmorten 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Hi, Just a comment that you'll get a better reception if you just state what you want, without making guessing at people's motivation - especially in edit summaries. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Using the edit summary seems to be the best way to ensure that a comment doesn't suddenly disappear. And I did not comment on motivations in the edit summary. Tskoge 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOST

... was protected because of edit warring. Getting it unprotected is simple: work out your disagreements on the talk page, then it gets unprotected. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a blatant lie as you were the first person to edit it for weeks. Tskoge 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

Could you give a reason for your revert of the edit from Eric82oslo on Oslo in e.g. Talk:Oslo? --Nordby73 10:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the information. Your explanation was helpful. --Nordby73 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The explanation was helpful to me, inasmuch as it helps me understand that your rationale was an unacceptable reason for doing what you did. I have commented accordingly on the article's talk page. Tomertalk 01:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bjørnøya

Hi Tskoge,

I have reverted your edit because it killed the references section. I am not sure why you changed the font sizes, most people here seem to think that a slightly smaller font for references and similar sections makes the layout look better and more professional. If there are no compelling reasons for your changes I'd prefer the smaller fonts, but please feel free to change the article if you disagree. thanks og ha det bra, Kosebamse 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll keep on reverting this nonsense. Please do not discuss such matters on a user page. Tskoge 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Kindly inform me what exactly you consider to be nonsense. While layout questions are subject to debate, the references section is needed and I can not think of a reason to remove it. And with respect to your choice of language, you might wish to have a glance at Wikipedia:Civility. Respectfully, Kosebamse 15:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please point which part of the wikipedia manual of style you are referring to.
You post nonsense to my user page, this is what you get. Nonsense is nonsense no matter who posts it.Tskoge 15:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Articles are expected to be referenced, and a references section is explicitly desirable. I'll look up the details should you not be aware of the relevant policies. I have not touched your user page, and have chosen to go to your talk page instead of the article's talk page because I did not want to expose the matter to the public beyond necessity (read: I consider your edit to be unwarranted and did not want everybody to see the discussion about it, as a matter of politeness). Talk pages are for discussing things, and if you consider my contributions to be nonsense, I repeat that you should explain why. Kosebamse 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You're a sneaky little bastard. That last edit of yours was not a revert, instead you added references. Tskoge 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Look it up in the article history, they were removed by your first edit. And it is my impression that your interaction with other Wikipedians might quite possibly benefit from your heeding the advice given in Wikipedia:Civility. Respectfully, Kosebamse 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Your comments here made it difficult to make out out what you were referring to, and your adding of the extraneous material made it difficult to understand what the code was supposed to do. Tskoge 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)~
If you are referring to the <div style="font-size: 90%"> and </div> thing, these are frequently used to decrease a font size. <references/> has recently gained much popularity for citations and is used in several featured articles (as is the small font for references and the like). See meta:Cite/Cite.php. Respectfully, Kosebamse 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Svalbard

On the demilitarized zone page you keep removing Svalbard. I thought it was demilitarized. I was just like to know why you removed it. Thanks. – Zntrip 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any other source than what you think? Tskoge 08:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, CIA World Factbook – Zntrip 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The CIA World Factbook. Years ago, having downloaded it from a BBS, I wondered if this really was something the CIA produced. Because parts of it is either plain wrong ... or just odd. And not just a "fact" here and there, but large chunks of it. The factbook is perhaps a bit more reputable than worldstatesmen.org, but probably not by much.

About Norway the factbook writes:

"a 1905 referendum granting Norway independence". Well, that's one way of putting it. But further down the page it states about independence: "7 June 1905 (Norway declared the union with Sweden dissolved); 26 October 1905 (Sweden agreed to the repeal of the union)"

It lists Bouvet Island, Jan Mayen and Svalbard as dependent areas, but ignores Peter I's Island and Dronning/Queen Maud Land (but there is a separate note about Maud at the end of the article). And it states that the "Supreme Court renders advisory opinions to legislature when asked". Well, yes, but the last time was in 1945, so renders is overstating it a bit.

They also claim that "State Council appointed by the monarch with the approval of parliament", which is wrong as the Storting does not approve governments.

Back to Svalbard:

In Report No. 9 to the Storting (1999-2000) the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police writes that:

Norway's full and absolute sovereignty over Svalbard under international law also applies to military activity and presence. However, Article 9 of the Svalbard Treaty imposes clear limits on the military activity Norway may engage in on the archipelago.
...
Article 9 does not entail an absolute prohibition against Norwegian military activity on Svalbard. Norwegian naval vessels and coast guard vessels calling at ports, military aircraft landing and the presence of Norwegian military personnel in uniform are not violations of the Treaty. Naval vessels have been calling at Svalbard ever since Norwegian administration was established on the archipelago. Nor is calling up conscripts for military service a violation of the provisions of the Treaty. Norway is not precluded from implementing defence measures in time of war. Moreover, the principle of Norway's full and absolute sovereignty over Svalbard applies to foreign military activity on Svalbard, cf. Article 1.
...

(chapter 4)

An older report, number 40 (1985-86), states that:

Det grunnleggende innhold i artikkel 9 er at Svalbard aldri må utnyttes i krigsøyemed. Denne innebærer imidlertid ikke at Norge er avskåret fra å iverksette forsvarstiltak under krig, slik som skjedde under annen verdenskrig.
Utover dette fastsetter traktaten konkret forbud mot anlegg av flåtebaser og befestninger. Noe generelt forbud mot enhver militær virksomhet foreligger ikke. Det er derfor i fullt samsvar med traktaten når norske marinefartøy og norske militærfly anløper Svalbard. Slike anløp har vært foretatt siden norsk administrasjon ble etablert på øygruppen. Norge har siden siste krig ikke hatt noen fast militær styrke på Svalbard.
Utenlandske militære enheter kan ikke uten særskilt tillatelse komme til Svalbard. Dette følger av alminnelige folkerettsregler og er ikke særskilt omtalt i Svalbard-traktaten.

(p. 10)

And an even older report, number 39 (1974-75), states that "Bestemmelsen [art. 9] er ellers bare til hinder for at opprettes faste flåtebaser eller befestninger. Under krigen var det en norsk garnison på Svalbard, uten at dette var i strid med traktatens forutsetninger. Garnisonen hadde som oppgave å forhindre at andre stater handlet i strid med forbudet mot at Svalbard nyttes i krigsøyemed. Etter krigen har norske krigsfartøyer og militærfly besøkt Svalbard, men det har ikke vært stasjonert noen fast militær styrke der."

Geir Ulfstein writes in The Svalbard Treaty: From Terra Nullius to Norwegian Soverignty (Scandinavian University Press [Universitetsforlaget], 1995):

... the question whether Svalbard is demilitarized.
Demilitarization has been defined as "the agreement of two or more States not to fortify, or station troops upon a particular zone of territory." ...
Svalbard is obviously demilitarized in the sense that the establishment of naval bases and fortifications is prohibited. But does the prohibition against using Svalbard for warlike purposes mean a complete demilitarization? (p. 374)

(pp. 375-78: he discusses the different wording in the French and English text)

page 376:

... there is all the more reason to apply a restrictive interpretation, i.e. that only war activities are prohibited.

page 377:

Other demilitarization treaties, entered into before and after the Svalbard Treaty contain a rather explicit wording when prohibiting military activities and installations. ... The wording of these treaties indicated that a more explicit wording should be required if art. 9 of the Svalbard Treaty were to prohibit military activities short of war and other military installations than fortifications and naval bases. ...

page 378:

As regards subsequent state practice, it has been stated above that the USSR claimed that the prohibition against using Svalbard for warlike purposes precludes all military activities, and that the USA has held that Svalbard is demilitarized. On the other hand, the Norwegian translation of art. 9 conforms with the French text in prohibiting the use of Svalbard for war purposes, as opposed to warlike purposes ["krigsøyemed]. Furthermore, Norway has never in response to the Soviet notes accepted that all military activities are precluded on Svalbard. ...
...
On the basis of a harmonisation of the precise French text and the ambiguous English text, the context, and the restrictive principle, it is thus concluded that the prohibition against using Svalbard for warlike purposes does not preclude military purposes short of war.

On p. 388 he states that "Svalbard is only partly demilitarized.", but also that Norwegian use of Svalbard has been ather limited. Perhaps a bit like art. 8: It prohibits Norway from profiting from taxation on Svalbard. However, "The Svalbard budget was balanced until the beginning of 1971, but since then a steady deficit has developed, which has been covered by the Norwegian government." (Ulfstein p. 297.) So in fact Svalbard causes Norway to lose money. Tskoge 14:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To quote the treaty: "Subject to the rights and duties resulting from the admission of Norway to the League of Nations, Norway undertakes not to create nor to allow the establishment of any naval base in the territories [Svalbard] specified in Article 1 and not to construct any fortification in the said territories, which may never be used for warlike purposes." [1] – Zntrip 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
How is Svalbard only "partly demilitarized"? since you seem to know. – Zntrip 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Svalbard

Tskoge, your endless reversions are more disruptive than contructive to the goal of writing good articles. Go to talk and present your grievances there. (Obviously, terse statements such as "You add nonsense, I remove nonsense. There is not much to discuss." in no way counts as a bonafide attempt at resolving disagreements. 3RR reported). //Big Adamsky 08:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Your edit on Talk:Svalbard#Removal_of_the_caterogy_.22Special_territories.22, which was placed on March 25th above a post made March 12th, can be confusing. Please, in the future, place new posts at the end of any thread on a talk page instead of injecting a new post in the middle. Thank you. --OrbitOne 10:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor of Laws

The fr link is fr:LL.D. We had big trouble on French language wikipedia concerning this question. We decided to split the article between two: on with the French expression (fr:Docteur en droit), the other with the English expression (fr:Doctor of Laws). The first one is used by Quebecker, where there is actually this diploma/title ; the second one is used by French, because some contributors decided to not use expressions from Québec.

Thank you to respect this very difficult question in French language Wikipedia.

Staatenloser 04:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

LL.D. is a disambiguation page. I'll remove the link then. Tskoge 07:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No no! It's not a disambiguous page, it's a page used to show two ways to say the same thing. It takes a couple of weeks to finally do it. We didn't agree about the used of English or French expression for the Doctor of Laws, in fact, and you can see it on the articles, it's almost the same thing. The link for fr:LL.D. is correct. Staatenloser 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it points to two different pages with not much more information than the fact that people might be interested in these similar topics, i.e. a disambiguation page. I am not aware of English wikipedia having a problem with a disambiguation in this case, the English page is not a disambiguation page and therefore there doesn't seem to be a reason to have a interlanguage link to a disambiguation page, see for example Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Interlanguage links and the text there and just below. But then, I'm not sure what page one should link to if the other wikipedia has two articles covering one topic. So please correct the English page to whatever you believe it should link to. But please explain that at Talk:Doctor of Laws, not here. Tskoge 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic degree

  1. Please don't blindly revert because you don't like one aspect of another editor's changes; if you don't like the addition of the information about citations, remove it (or, better, discuss it on the Talk page, as it's not clear what harm you think it's doing).
  2. What are you using "spam" to mean? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you continue reverting, you will be blocked from editing for a period for vandalism. It's your choice; ignoring me isn't a sensible option. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked your from editing for three hours for insisting on an identical revert which worsened the article, ignoring my messages above, and for using a deliberately misleading edit summary in so doing. If on the expriry of the block you'd like to discuss the issue, and to edit by consensus, that will be very welcome. If you continue with the same behaviour, however, the blocks will increase in length. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Here are the reverts in question[2]. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But you're not blocking User:Big Adamsky, the person who has added all the baseless information and disregards the talk page? Tskoge 17:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • For continuing to insist on reverting [mistaken point about intervening edits removed], you have been blocked for forty-eight hours. Please, on your return, reconsider your behaviour. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? What intervention? For a dictator, you're not very talkative. Tskoge 23:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at your latest edit at Academic degree. You reverted three corrections to internal links and the removal of a number of unnecessary spaces. Your edit summaries don't refer to these parts of your edit, and are in any case inaccurate and misleading: you're not removing "spam", and the material with which you're concerned is not visible to the normal reader, only to the editor. Read my further explanation at Talk:Academic degree. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to specify what the links are or how they were changed or who the intervener is. The thing about the intervener seems to be a "mistaken point". Is this what you base blocking decisions on, mistaken points? I am not aware of having broken any links. The links I changed were redirect links, which I changed so that they link directly to the intended page and better convey what is to be found at the linked page. The other links worked and still work. I'm not going to comment on every little thing that I edit. Spaces may be added freely, please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings). There are no further explanations at the talk page, only your refusals. I cannot remember seeing comments of this kind on other pages. Hidden comments mean that they go unnoticed and over time forgotten, eventually they might no longer be accurate or point to a resource that no longer exists. Tskoge 14:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

See, for example, List of jazz drummers (among many similar articles) for an example of commented instructions to editors. Then supply a link to any Wikpedia policy of guideline that justifies your removal of the citation advice in this article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to use the raw dump feature. That page has specific guidelines for that page, not just on how to edit. But anyway, I would prefer to have such information on the talk page instead. (Or even better: on a wikipedia guideline page.) I've often wondered about contributing to a page, haven't found a specific guideline I've been looking for, and just left it at that. But perhaps the information I was looking for was hidden somewhere in the page's wiki source.
Please instead cite which guideline that states when one should add editing random information to pages and when to use a general guideline page, which are easy to read and find.
Information about footnotes can be found at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Which is a wikipedia guideline, and not some external link. If I hadn't already known about footnotes, this is what I would have looked for in order to find information about making footnotes in articles. Your text on the other hand contains almost no useful information, just a link to an external site which is basically incomprehensible to regular editors and readers.
Do you block at and do you base blocking decisions on mistaken points? Do actually have any knowledge of what the Wikipedia guidelines state or do you just leave that to regular editors? Tskoge 17:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're misusing the word "random" so extravagantly that I can't make out what you mean by it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Was that the only thing you could think of so that you wouldn't have to answer a single question? Tskoge 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Every one of your questions/statements misuses the word "random"; there was nothing left. The advice at Academic degree is clearly not random on any normal reading of that word (nor is it a musing — another misused word; your aim seems simply to be to use words as weapons rather than for communication). Similarly, I know of no case in which "random information" is added to "random pages". Nor was my block random. What's left for me to answer? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you are not able to comprehend sentences with the word "random" in them, so I've removed all uses of "random". Why aren't you blocking youself? You've added some of the very edits I made which according to your actions vandalized the page. Tskoge 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)