User talk:Valentinian/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives
  1. 4 May 2005 – 4 May 2006
  2. 4 May 2006 – 19 July 2006
  3. 19 July 2006 – 23 August 2006
  4. 23 August 2006 – 10 January 2007
  5. 10 January 2007 – 3 May 2007
  6. 3 May 2007 – 27 June 2007
  7. 27 June 2007 – 8 September 2007

Kan du hjælpe mig med af snittet The corset falls from favor i History_of_corsets?

Korsettet var fosat påmode, fra 1908 til 1924 og fra 1936 til 1960. Med største højdepunkt nogen sinde i 1918.

Tilbage gangen skal ses i et større pespertiv, fra de store tornyre i 1886 frem til de lårkorte kjoler i 1928. Korsettet var underlag for de fine dragter og da de svandt ind i takt med den økonomiske vægst, så var korsettet unødvendigt.

Når korsettet endeligt helt forsvant i 1960 så skyldtes det strømpebukserne, da disse ikke krævede strømpeholder.

Feminister og dress reform bevægelsen var uden nogen som helst betydning. Håbet 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Mange tak for hjælpen.--Håbet 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use image removed from your user page

Hello, Valentinian. I've removed Image:Dk-v-logo.png from your user page (and also from User:Valentinian/Sandbox), as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the logo from your user page because it goes against Wikipedia policy. It may be lawful for you to use the image as you were doing, but the Wikipedia fair-use policy explicitly says, "9. Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. … They should never be used on templates … or on user pages." Wikipedia is intentionally stricter than legally necessary about fair-use images. Please take a look at the fair-use policy, and also Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images (especially the section on manually coded userboxes), for the rationale behind this policy. Let me know if you have any other questions. —Bkell (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you also asked me about a better tag for the logo, which would express that "The logos may be used freely, but not modified in any way or manipulated." The acceptable image copyright tags in use on Wikipedia fall into three broad categories:
  • Public domain, which means that the copyright holder has lost all rights to the image, and that anyone can use or modify the image in any way, commercially or noncommercially, with or without attribution.
  • Free licenses (such as the GFDL or some Creative Commons licenses), which allow anyone to use or modify the image in any way, for any purpose, commercially or noncommercially. Some free licenses require attribution, and some require that any modifications or redistributions be released under the same free license.
  • Fair use, which means that the image is copyrighted and has not been released under a free license. All images used under claims of fair use must follow the Wikipedia fair use policy.
Plainly the Venstre logo is not in the public domain. The copyright holder says that the image must not be modified, so it is not released under a free license. Consequently, Wikipedia can only use it under a fair-use claim, so the {{logo}} tag is the best choice. —Bkell (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to have the image in your sandbox, there's no reason you can't just make a link to it, like this: Image:Dk-v-logo.png. That way it will work for "Related changes", but it won't violate the Wikipedia fair use policy. —Bkell (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As for why there isn't a tag that means "free use, but no modification allowed", the answer is that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. So all the "free licenses" that can be used for images on Wikipedia have to meet certain minimum requirements, such as allowing for commercial use and for modification of the image. I'm not sure why the policy in the English Wikipedia allows for exceptions in the form of fair-use images; the German Wikipedia doesn't allow fair-use images at all. But we don't want to have varying degrees of "freeness", so none of the acceptable licensing templates convey the idea of free use but no modification, or free use for non-commercial purposes, or free use in Wikipedia but nowhere else. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, an image cannot be "half-free". Therefore, if an image is not completely free, it is considered to be used under a claim of fair use. This is again Wikipedia policy, not any requirement mandated by U.S. copyright law. —Bkell (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Two BB cats too many

Hi! Please See: this (and the 'split' note below). Krill says there is a debate on WP:SHIPS which has the Maritine warfare task force... Who is debating these categories, and are they taking into account the commons cat tree? (Notice the interwiki tagging in the cat links... which oh, so indirectly brought me to your door! <g>). I was tempted to tag two with {{category redirect2}}, but that may not go over well! <g> Please drop me an email with the scoop. Thanks // FrankB 16:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 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.

Africa geo-stub categories

No, that's fine, go ahead and add the note. Others that might have got missed off are Mayotte and Mozambique (currently S - Mozambique has its own cat, Myotte doesn't). These probably moved over to E, given that Zimbabwe, Comoros and others nearby do too. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Party logos

I am neutral on using logo's in template. When in the orignal table logo's were used, I continued that. When not, that was okay too. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick talk contribs 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand if you have to decline. I will say, though, that there is always help needed from people with multiple talents and knowledge levels, even what you termed "janitorial" work! My guess is that very few of us are experts. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 16:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Currency symbol

Hi,

I'm not an expert of Scandinavia, so I can't really say which symbols are correct. But when you update them, could you also update List of circulating currencies. Thanks. --Chochopk 23:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Valentinian (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

I think you may have the wrong end of the stick...

Dkr, Skr and Nkr aren't ISO codes, they're used (as I understand it) to disambiguate when the various krone/krona are all being used in the same document (unless you're saying that normal people use ISO codes for that, which I find hard to believe). In that sense they are the same as e.g. EC$ for "East Caribbean Dollar"; $ is the symbol usually used, but if U.S. dollars are on the same page then EC$ would be used to disambiguate. As far as Sk goes, I'm not from that part of the world so I can't comment on whether or not it's actually in use, but I doubt somehow that it's an ISO code (for one thing, it's only two characters in length). I should also point out that, contrary to your implication, the information didn't come from a single document; e.g. I have two separate documents that use Sk as an abbreviation for Swedish krona, and it's trivial (using Google) to find more.

Anyway, my purpose in going through all of the currency symbols was to try to make the list more consistent and (where possible) more comprehensive. I don't claim to be an expert on any specific region, so if you're from Sweden and you say Sk isn't used then I defer to your knowledge on the subject. --Ajhoughton 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on some code related to this area, which is why I decided to try to have a go at getting a consistent list. Anyway, I've just been experimenting with IBM's ICU library, and that produces the following output for these ISO codes:

ICU's output for Scandinavian currency codes
ISO Code Formatted Output
NOK NKr 123.45
SEK SKr 123.45
DKK DKr 123.45

That was with an English locale, but if I switch to e.g. a Norwegian locale (e.g. nor_NO), I get

ICU's output for Scandinavian currency codes
ISO Code Formatted Output
NOK kr 123.45
SEK SKr 123.45
DKK DKr 123.45

which is what I'd expect.

I think it's very unlikely that IBM would get this wrong; indeed, it's exactly the kind of thing that you'd expect IBM to really know about, as they must do an awful lot of work for people who are particularly concerned about money (and on an international scale at that).--Ajhoughton 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

New barnstar proposal

Hi there! I see that you previously supported a barnstar proposal for stub sorting. There's a new one I'm trying to drum up support for. If you like, you can see it at The Stub Sorting Barnstar. Thanks for considering it. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Valentinian (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Server-heavy" images

Can you explain what you meant on Template talk:Royal-stub? I don't understand how an image can have a particularly high server cost. The rendered file sizes are just about the same, and as far as I'm aware, the SVG only get rendered once, so there's not much extra processing cost there... ~ Booya Bazooka 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have little information about how real the size problem currently is, but I prefer to be on the safe side. Around one year ago, WP:WSS got a few comments from one of the server guys claiming that his servers were overworked, so for a while we removed all stub images completely. Since we restored them, WP:WSS has generally tried to use lighter images, and I just noticed that the black and white image was very light in this context. I'm not into the technical side this issue myself, unfortunately, but the size issue is a shame since Commons:Category:Crowns has many fine images. Unfortunately, this is all I know about this issue. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I found the comment to which you refer, but no mention of specific images being particularly bad. I've placed the question on WP:VPT. ~ Booya Bazooka 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Says cesarb on the Pump: "a large stub image has the same load on the servers as a small stub image". Regarding the royalty stub, I do agree with your revert, as the red crown I picked looks rather ugly when thumbnailed. Still, I wouldn't be worried about using a large image. ~ Booya Bazooka 19:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me! Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a reconsideration

here. // FrankB 05:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
And me backing (Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7B1632-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:1632-verse_stubs):
:The current template is still way too small, but I'll buy Grutness' suggestion. Valentinian (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Me Tooo0000—was very suprised there wasn't since is such a vigorous and active sub-field of SF, my interest is that there be a managably small administrative 'To-Do' list category for such projects, not more. This works fine for me. Thanks for clear thinking 'V' and 'G'!
I took the liberty of 'embolding' your endorsement as shown.
   Don't understand your 'template is way too small comment' do you mean the contents apply to too few stubs?
   If so, fear not. There is a lot of alternate history genre fiction out there and this one series will definitely spawn 80+ (rough estimate) of article stubs just to cover it's short fiction.
   Add a similar amount for notable characters. I'm going to try to see if I can keep most of those inside the 'short fiction title articles', but have not really begun to survey exactly what other series projects have set for a trend, save know there are a lot of character articles—many more than I like. I've been too busy on the commons to do more than preliminaries this last month, but I will be kicking the fiction efforts into high focus and time input after vacation.
   The interwiki category work I've been testing will be under discussion as a Meta-project by then and I can get my head back into article needs. Hasn't been 'there', but on intersister category needs since early June. Sorry for not seeing the 'how-to/when-to' notes until I'd already added these. Going 'bold' and trying to maximize productivity sometimes has unintended consequences. I probably should have left a note on the stub-sorting talk page. Best regards // FrankB 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with translations

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help , then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Danish. Thanks, --Soman 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Soman 13:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem :) Valentinian (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

United States Armed Forces

re: 'Redirect page: United States Armed Forces and This Orphaned Talk Page — don't know what to do. The talk looks stale, but should it still be there or (as I suspect) merged with the talk page on Military of the United States / (talk: Military of the United States. So if you can fix it, t'would be good. I'm gone off on vacation. Thanks. // FrankB 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

DRC

Could you clariy for me the contradiction in List of Prime ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Thanks --AndrewRT 20:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Transmigrasi

You carried out some major edits to this page. Yet your stated reasons were 'grammar' and 'fixed link'. Aside from the fact that you actually CREATED an error in a what was a link (ie, first sentence - Indonesia is different to Indonesian language), your edits amounted to a revert of my careful checking of the POV. Essentially each of your changes was careful a revert of mine to what was previously stated to the previous version - thus suggesting a lack of thought on your behalf. If you are going to make dubious changes please at least be HONEST and explain them, rather than saying you fixed grammar. --Merbabu 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I was way too tired to be editing properly last night. I've restored the page to your former version and tried again. I can only agree, it was a mess. (Replied on your talk page). Valentinian (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"First of all, it seems like my first edit summary is simply incorrect, my apologies. I was way too tired to be editing properly last night and I was talking on the phone with a friend at the same time. It looks like this was a bad combination. Regarding the first edit, I only remembered updating two links, and changing a bit linguistically (and I'm rather surprised that I completely forgot proofreading the result.) My edits were simply prompted by seeing Indonesian government as a redlink, and originally, I hadn't planned on changing anything except this link. When I look at the material now, I can't remember ever making most of the edit, so phonecalls and editing are a bad combination. My apologies again. I have no problems with the conclusions you draw regarding the subject. I've reverted the page to how it looked before I messed it up, and then changed a few of the stylistic issues (which was what I was supposed to have done last night.) Regards. Valentinian (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)""
Thanks for your consideration - i was a little wary of your receiving your response, but you have proven my fears unfounded. Perhaps i was little strong in my comments above, but i was a little put out when your termed edits as "fixed link" and "minor grammar" yet i saw them as (correctly or otherwise) as a revert of my own carefully considered edits. (also, if you see the discussion and history page, i was already put out by an anonymous editor who clearly didn't give my earlier edits much thought). I work a lot on Indonesian-related pages, and sometimes there is an apparent theme where POV is OK, automatically factual even, if it is "anti-Indonesian" but if it is "pro-Indonesian" POV, it is "bias". I'd rather be honest and have all the agreed facts first and THEN ALL points of view stated but clearly stated as POV. This partly exaplains my premature suspicions about your intent - my apologies. I must say, that although my edits were careful to tread carefully through unavoidable different points of view, I am sure some were clumbsily worded even if at least my intent was clear. I now see that after your revert, you have made some further edits to style and these i am largely in agreement with. Ie, you left my carefully placed intent, but fixed up my awkward words. Cheers. --Merbabu 13:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the fault was mine so no hard feelings from me. I've replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
oh - and my edit summary in the history page should have read "your most recent edits are an improvement TO THE ARTICLE." cheers. --Merbabu 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkmenistan stub

Hi there,

Why do you think that Renaming of Turkmen months and days of week, 2002 is a stub? It is quite long and complete. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time, do remember to assume good faith with newcomers!

Once again dear Valentinian, do you still remember back the incident when we had a great dissension with each other from those two talk pages with/over some slight misunderstandings concerning about the two Wiki-articles with the same title: "house of cards"? Could you please forgive me for my hypercriticalness of my reaction upon some unrealised and unaware responses over/regarding those matters that happened nearly around one-and-a-half months ago? To be honest with you, I was somehow a bit unsure about those issues back then because at that moment I felt a bit uneasy (with those articles) when it comes to something which are so similar or almost to close-likeness that is really confusing for me to grasp. Besides, I was quite new into this Wikipedian community! That is why I am more inclined to differentiate them or to label them separately and clearly when such situation appears in front of me. But and however and much more importantly, there is something that you need to be reminded of concerning about that stuff, that is the manner or the way you treat with the Wiki-"inexperienced" newcomers (like me during those days) into this encyclopedia. Did not you realise and identify carefully that I was just only a-week-and-a-half-old Wikipedian back then when the aforementioned argument just happened/cropped-up unexpectedly between you and me? Please do understand more of those typical newcomers the next time when you are going to encounter them and also please re-read or review observantly about newcomers that or who are already mentioned from the Wikipedia's introductory project page on how to assume good faith towards newcomers. Thank you and thanks a lot for taking your time to read this of my message! Yours faithfully, onWheeZierPLot 07:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee, thanks a lot for taking your time to read my above post and also sending in or giving out your positive reply message into my user talk page with your genuine understanding (well...almost like expressing heartfelt sympathy towards me) about my "plight"! (That is much better, I think!) I am truly/quite appreciated by what you have mentioned recently! By the way, concerning about the matter of highlighting texts, using bold or italic text-style does not mean/indicate that I really shout or yell. Instead and/or as a matter a fact, I often use them to make or to put an emphasis, significance, or importance on those words that I wanted to stress upon more often (mainly when it comes to online-chatting and other online-editing stuffs to other people from other websites) as a meaning of my open self-expression when it comes to terms of strong views, whether good or bad, and so on. Plus, it is also my habitual nature for me to have a tendency to do such petty things until this habit has become forever stuck within me in my life up until now (just like a birthmark on a skin)! However, what I find it odd, queer, and strange about you is that you somehow seem to be very bothered, overly concerned, or should I say: being too sensitive over the font style of those letters whether it is in bold form or in italic form as compared than to the other people in the Net I have encountered before so far! Anyway, but if you tell me to or say so, alright, I will try my best to change myself in terms of such editing manner by what you had "decreed" from your previous message and I promise you not to do that "italic-bold style" again especially when it comes to editing or replying anything to you! Thanks a lot for your advice together with your almost-pleasant message! Yours sincerely, onWheeZierPLot 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

subst stubs

Hi. I see you've been unsubsting stubs that I substed! Bruce1ee told me this morning not to subst them, so I won't be doing any more. Ironically, I only bother with the subst code because when I was a newbie another editor told me off for not doing this! --Dweller 12:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No harm done. Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

Just wanted to say

I just wanted to say I appreciate your apology and understand why you gave it, but I am sorry you you felt you had to do so. It's never nice when you feel someones bad behavior reflects on you. I also want to say that I don't think anyone here lets Comanches behaviour colour their excelent view of Danes. I certainly don't. "Det er deilig å være norsk i Danmark" Inge 10:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so! I hope our two peoples will always remain friends. I did see OrbitOne's less-than-enthusiastic post on WP:AN/I about the post, however, I still believe somebody had to say something, although I too am sorry it had to be me. I for one still believe in the very archaic idea about national "honour". Valentinian (talk) 22:54, 11 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 - 12:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Navigation Template

Hey, whats up with that? :) What is the problem with the TR interwiki link? --Cat out 08:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to message you :) If you take a look at the interwiki links on Denmark there are two Turkish links. The correct one is displayed under "T" but "Tr:Şablon:Dolaşım" has added itself to the top of the interwiki box. It is the same with the article on Germany, but I can't see it everywhere, so I presume it has to do with a recent edit, either here or on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you have any ideas of how to fix this one, I'd really appreciate the help. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... <noinclude> is expected to prevent that. Originaly (before your edit it was outside of the <noinclude> </noinclude>. After your edit you probably was looking at the wikipedia chache. (templates can me a pain). So in the light of that/under that asumption. I'll try somehting... Hopefully it will all work, if it doesnt (and I might not necesarily see it) please do tell me. --Cat out 09:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks fine now. Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Denmark-Norway

Hi V - I really don't know enough about the history of the countries to be able to say one way or the other what should be done with the article (and when the talk page veers off into Danish I'm completely lost!). All I can really suggest is that this seems a perfect candidate for a RfC. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem - it's not much of a break anymore anyway. I did take a week off, but I'm now back here again - just not editing quite as much as I used to (and with a slimmed-down watchlist). And no, playing Solomon isn't my strong suit :) Grutness...wha? 08:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, but I am not an admin. I am just a proactive and bold editor. I will talk with an admin about this though.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuddlemark was so kind as to speedie delete it for me.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Current-UK-MP-stub

Hi Valentinian, as the creator of {{UK-current-MP-stub}}, I have just posted a reply to the SFD for Current British MP stubs, and wondered if you would like to take a look and reconsider your nomination. As posted there, having populated the category, it contains over 300 articles, and there are many reasons why I think that this stub category is both viable and useful. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 15:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page and at WP:SFD. Valentinian (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Brief reply on my talk, but I'll reply properly at the SFD.
PS I meant to ask, is there a handy template or something which does that neat sig with the link to talk, which you use? --BrownHairedGirl 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. :) Valentinian (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks again :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem :) Valentinian (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CoA of Warsaw

The earlier svg was a simple mistake by Poznaniak, as the skin should be proper (Carnation) rather than Or (as it usually is in Polish heraldry). Anyway, as to the project - I believe I got fooled by the fact that Polish: projekt and English: project are false friends. This particular meaning of the earlier better corresponds to the English word of design, so it should perhaps be this particular design. Oh, and of course the symbol did enjoy official status before 1938, but the shape of the shield, the face of the melusine and the shape of the tail were different. //Halibutt 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you say that it was official before 1938. I really had a hard time believing otherwise. Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's ok with me :) //Halibutt 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Tlou

Hi, ta for sorting that stub, but I'm not convinced Dr T. Tlou counts as a politician: he was a diplomat for a few years, but I think that's all. His wife Dr S. Tlou, however, is certainly a politician (Minister of Health). Some confusion, perhaps? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Atlas

Thanks. How did you do this? Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 09:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Undskyld men forfølger du mig?

Har du et probelm med mig? København er næsten dobbelt så stor som Stockholm. Du måler ikke en by på hvilket areal det bruger, men på befolkning. Det er et forkert PR trik at kalde Stockholm større end København --Comanche cph 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1) It is not illegal to have Swedish pages on my watchlist, 2) All documentation I have seen says that Stockholm is bigger. If you have any other sources, please present them. Valentinian (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you any link to that documentation? My book UNIONS UNIVERSAL HÅNDBOG (1967!) say København 1.300.000 Stockholm 1.000.000.Håbet 22:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I haven't heard about that book before, but I have very little knowledge about the situation 30 years ago. It is before the Danish municipal reform of 1970, and while the borders of Copenhagen municipality basically haven't changed since somewhere before 1970, Stockholm seems to have annexed a few suburbs in both 1977 and 1991[1]. I think that is the explanation. Unfortunately, I don't know how the Greater Stockholm or Greater Copenhagen regions were defined back then, or where the borders of Stockholm were located back in the 1960s. It is probable that Copenhagen municipality was originally the bigger of the two but that this changed when Stockholm "ate" a few of its suburbs, but I don't have enough data to say for sure.
Regarding the current situation, I simply took the quickest solution and rechecked the relevant pages on the Danish, English and Swedish wikipedias and I've listed what I found on Talk:Stockholm. Until around a year ago, I had always thought that the two cities were almost the same in terms of size, but the numbers seem to say otherwise. But again, I don't have enough information to say something definitive about how the situation was 30 years ago, but the Copenhagen number you quote must definitely have been the Greater Copenhagen region (however that was defined back then.) Cheers. Valentinian (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Lithuania

Hi, Valentian, thank you for your understanding in our discussion about History of Lithuania, if you haven't forgotten it yet. If you, as a Historian, have a question about Lithuania, please feel free to ask me, I have now a collection of books both in English and in Lithuanian, that are not available on internet, but are written by acqnowledged scholars, and I will try to give you an reliable answer. I cannot promise a quick answer though, since I have gotten even more busy and have unexpected personal problems. Juraune 18:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer and I hope the best for you. Replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid this is out of my area of expertise. Good luck with the article though. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Har du læst det danske wikipedia?

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmark-Norge

"Norge blev løsrevet fra Danmark i 1814 ved Freden i Kiel. I Norge blev perioden 1380-1814 særligt i 1800-tallet betegnet som "400-årsnatten."

I never bother to read the Danish wikipedia, since its content is generally of an incredibly low quality. But don't bring an edit conflict over there, please! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are amazing sometimes. The 400 years night is from Norwegian historicans. Why do you choose to be so ignorant? --Comanche cph 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like taking abuse from you, and you are quite far from the truth. However, I have answered why I write the way I do on your talk page. Alas, I don't think you share the same ideals. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Essay

The Epic Barnstar
Your answer User_talk:Comanche_cph#The_.22400_year_long_night.22 is awesome, and very moving, and I would like to strongly request that you turn it into an essay. It is worth preserving and making known far more widely than on the talk page of a user who has just stated that he has no interest in working collegially. Please consider preserving it somewhere. Your ideals are very worthy of sharing. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sir, I am humbled. I've replied on your talk page. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valentinian/Archive_3&oldid=1081107509"