User talk:Inge/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Inge. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Vikings and Danes, and kings and names
I've amended the Viking article to match the Viking Age one, though it's a shame to have duplication between articles. I also agree with your comment about the Danes in 1066 and have changed that to "Norwegians". After Harald Fairhair and Gorm the Old unified their territories, the term Viking strikes me as less appropriate. In England, we talk of Canute as a Dane, not a Viking, and I note that he's never called a Viking in his article.
On another matter, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to help me at Talk: List of Danish monarchs, where I've stuck my oar in about the consistency of naming the Canutes. I know that you are Norwegian and not Danish, but Canute did rule Norway, too (on the Norwegian monarchs' list, he is called Knut the Great, which is a mixture of Norwegian and English, a good solution, I think), and I expect you will understand the nuances of lingo. Having studied Medieval History at university, I'm confident of what these kings are called as English kings, but in my opinion what they are called in Danish as Danish kings should be translated into English, if necessary, rather than the names they are called as English kings being automatically superimposed (if that makes sense).
qp10qp 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 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 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hei
Hello! I like your work, congratulations. I'm trying to make the best about Bergen in the French wiki, check this, buts its still under construction ;)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Saty
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_%28Norv%C3%A8ge%29
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructions_d%C3%A9fensives_de_Bergen
Do you live in Bergen? I will study there next year, I love that city!
Si tu veux travailler ton Français viens me voir :p
Vi ses!
Skygge 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hei du! Thank you for your comment. Your articles seem to be very good. I am nowadays only able to get the general idea of meaning when I read French and I can only write some short and simple sentances. When you don't practice a language regularily it fades away :( I live in Bergen and I think it is a very nice city. The only things I hear students complain about in Bergen is the rain and that the Buekorps marching season coincides with spring exams. Heavy drumming outside your study hall can be annoying, but I find it charming even though I am not a native. Inge 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- )
I know Bergen and it's my favourite city since i came in 2002. I came back last to winter, and i'll study there from 2007 to 2008. As you can imagine i can't wait and i alway think to that :p. I'm suffering a lot. Nachspiel über alles! The rain doesn't matter, but the buekorps and others musical puppet are very noisy :p. Vi snakkes! You know there is French courses at UIB, go work your French now! hehe. Skygge 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright
Please see my comments at Image talk:Rune Gjeldnes in Antarctica.jpg when you have a chance. —Chowbok ☠ 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Harald Fairhair
Did you see the edit by Marrtel - this one - to Harald Fairhair ? Is that a reasonable change ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, no. I think it is valid to point out that as with much material from this time it is not certain wether it is true, and then go on to point to referenced publications that have given this or that theory going against the general theory. To have these comments this early in the article is in my view wrong. Inge 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw you assess this with a B. What am I missing? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well I assess a lot of articles and I have to do it quickly. Articles in doubt might not always be assessed correctly. My thoughts when I assessed that article: The article has not passed a GA-review and I normally only assess as A class when I feel the article is clearly very close to FA-class, but hasn't been nominated yet. This article has failed FA-nomination. The assessment may be wrong in this case. If you disagree reassess it to A-class. That might very well be more apropriate. Inge 21:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am in the process of making this into an FA, so I am still trying to assess what I need information wise to the article, if anything. About the GA review, I do not know anyone who is involved in the GA process and only one article I wrote (out of many) got GA (Hero of the Russian Federation). It is on peer review now, so it will be sent to FAC very, very soon. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
A question
Hello! Sorry to bother you with a non-Wikipedia-related question, it's just that no Norwegian contributors are currently active on the language reference desk, so I'm forced to ask people on their talk pages. Could you please tell me how the name Kielland (as in Alexander Kielland) is pronounced in Norwegian? As Kjell-and or otherwise? Thank you, --194.145.161.227 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I guess it can be useful for the article about him, too. An IPA transcription can be included. --194.145.161.227 16:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The first part is pronounced like Norwegians pronounce Kjell, the a is more like the a in English hard and the d is most often silent allthough it wouldn't be wrong to pronouce it as I suspect speakers of some dialects would. Then again the "owners" of a surname are sometimes very protective of their particular pronouciation. The Munch family certainly is...Inge 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I needed that info for a paper I'm writing in Bulgarian, because we use phonetic renditions of foreign names. Concerning Munch, I suppose you mean the pronunciation of the vowel in "Munch" as in "lukke" as opposed to "gutt"? And, a propos - is "Edvard" really pronounced as if it were spelled "Edvart" (as stated in Edvard Munch)?--194.145.161.227 14:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well in some of the eastern dialects your Munch example is correct. As for Edvard, I believe most people do not pronounce the last letter. Inge 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was trying to guess how the Munch family's pronunciation differs from other people's (I suppose I am most familiar with Standard East Norwegian; personally, I have either never heard the name spoken by a Norwegian, or at any rate forgotten how it sounded). Now, the edit saying that Edvard is pronounced as Edvart was User:Devanatha's. He is Norwegian, too, so maybe you should discuss this between yourselves? :) I'm going to ask him, too. --194.145.161.227 12:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- And another thing - could you tell me where the stress is in "Alexander" (in Norwegian). It's the only thing I still need to add to the transcription of Kielland's name in the article. --194.145.161.227 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The so called Standard East Norwegian is somewhat misleading. The term is almost never used in Norwegian. There is no standard for East Norwegian as there are many different dialects spoken in Eastern Norway. However the more polished version of the Oslo-dialect is spreading in eastern Norway and is probably what is meant by the term "Standard East Norwegian".
- The stress is on the second a. Inge 13:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you recently assessed GAA county colours , if you could provide a few pointers on how to improve the articial it would be most helpful , Thanks (Gnevin 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC))
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 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 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Parliamentarism in Denmark
The year always quoted is 1901. The democratic constitution was established in 1849, but thoroughly revised in 1866 (hence the horrible name "Den gennemsete grundlov") weakening many of the democratic liberties. In Denmark, parliamentarism is understood as "Folketingsparlamentarisme" (popularly: "Ingen over og ingen ved siden af Folketinget"). However, since Rigsdagen originally had two chambers without a clear distinction of which was the Upper and Lower House, the Conservative Christian IX based his cabinets on support from Landstinget, to which suffrage was limited to males age 35 and up, consequently giving a more conservative composition than Folketinget to which males aged 25 and up could vote. Folketinget rather quickly became dominated by the three Venstre groups and - later - by an alliance between these + the Social Democrats, in all cases trying to defeat Højre, i.e. the Conservatives, who held on to power in Landstinget. This struggle is known as Forfatningskampen. The most important area of dispute was the annual budget, which demanded the approval of both chambers of parliament. Since Estrup wanted to built a strong fortification of Copenhagen (where the Conservative votes were concentrated), Venstre naturally opposed since their voters lived in the countryside. Consequently, Folketinget rejected the annual budget virtually every year leading to provisorietiden where Estrup personally authorised a "provisional budget" which was only approved by Landstinget, and which authorised massive sums for the Fortification of Copenhagen.
In the 1890s the situation became very tense. An assassination attempt was made at Estrup's life but the bullet hit one the buttons of his overcoat, so he escaped unharmed. At the same time, Venstre men organized in community halls (forsamlingshuse) and rifle associations, while Højre men gathered in højrehuse leading to a polarization of society in many regions. People were effectively preparing for civil war. The situation was also complicated by the fact it was pretty much a public secret that Crown Prince Frederick supported Venstre. He even wrote a few articles in Copenhagen papers under a false name. Naturally, Venstre supporters hoped that the old king would simply die to fix the situation. Around the middle of the 1890s the situation improved somewhat and I believe at least one budget was approved by both houses of parliament (because a number of Venstre men defected), however the situation threatened with returning to the worse again. A group of Højre men now began fearing that things could get out of control and somebody finally suggested to Christian IX that he appoint a new Prime Minister known to sympathize with Venstre but not one of the actual leaders. (En mand, der har været præsenteret ved hoffet.) The man in question was Johan Henrik Deuntzer who took office in 1901. The following is not accurate, but it covers the meaning of the conversation: "Er De ikke Venstremand, hr. Professor? Ikke så meget at det gør noget, Deres Majestæt." Venstre accepted the king's choice and Deuntzer became the first Venstre PM, an event known in Denmark as Systemskiftet. Christian IX later realized that the Venstre peasants didn't wish bloody revolution so in 1905, Venstre's real leader J. C. Christensen was finally appointed Prime Minster.
It is this background that is the reason why Christian X's mess-up in the Easter Crisis in 1920 threatened with bringing down the monarchy. When the crowd gathred in Amalienborg Square, Christian X remarked to the Crown Prince: "Det kan godt være at du aldrig bliver konge." This time the monarchy was saved by the intervention of Thorvald Stauning whom Christian X learned to respect. Christian X learned his lesson and stayed out of politics for the rest of his life, Frederick IX and Margrethe II have done the same. Today, nobody could imagine otherwise. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Stændermøde (from 1468) and Rådgivende provinsialstænderforsamlinger (from 1831) was the first parliamentarism in DenmarkHåbet 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are thinking about the first assemblies, but the politological term "Parliamentarism" means that a government has to be approved by a majority in parliament.
- Den Store Danske Encyklopædi (quote): Parlamentarisme, politisk styreform, der bygger på parlamentets kontrol med, hvem der danner regering. Dens kerne, det parlamentariske princip, er, at en regering ikke kan udnævnes eller forblive ved magten, dersom et flertal i parlamentet, i tokammersystemer evt. blot dets andetkammer, utvetydigt modsætter sig den. Fælles for alle systemer med parlamentarisme er, at et parlamentsflertal kan skille sig af med en regering eller tvinge den til at udskrive nyvalg. Parlamentarismen udvikledes oprindelig i Storbritannien og bredte sig fra sidste halvdel af 1800-t. til mange andre lande, således at den i dag under forskellige former praktiseres i fx alle vesteuropæiske systemer. Med Systemskiftet i 1901 anerkendtes parlamentarismen i Danmark. (...) (unquote) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for that answer. Very interesting. I see this issue is a bit less clear cut than in Norway. Here the implementation of parliamentarism was a part of the struggle between Stortinget and the king. The king had to give in on this point in 1884. That was seen as a great victory for democracy and Norwegian self-determination so I guess it has been emphasised more. Inge 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Norway Portal
Very much appreciate your correcting the Norway Portal. As I'm not Norwegian by birth, it is less than desirable that I've been the only one maintaining it of late. I've worried about errors, just like that one. Tusen Takk - Williamborg (Bill) 15:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. It is a bit difficult to "keep your tongue straight in your mouth" :) when dealing with that particular issue. It is a shame the Norway portal gets as little attention from all the Norwegians here. I guess I haven't done my bit either. I hope I will be able to contribute more in the future, but I can't promise anything. Inge 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Flag copyright
Thanks for this information! I tried contacting the people who designed the flag in question, but didn't recieve a reply and for a while now the site has been down (so I created my own based on slightly different dimensions - matching the Norwegain Flag). However, the flag is also in use by the website of a government office, and I actually have a real material flag which I ordered online, so it must have some kind of recognition however unofficial (I'm guessing someone was bored in this office on a Friday afternoon ;) so I'll try emailing these people some time and see where that leads... Anyhoo, that was a verbose description of what's up with this flag issue. Mainly just wanted to say cheers for pointing out the copyright issue. Ta! --- calum 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Shetland
Thanks for all your work to expand the Shetland article. I polished the spelling up a bit yesterday, but there were two bits I couldn't make sense of:
Rhinelandish guilders. - should this be Dutch gulden??
and
geheime council in Edinburgh.
--JBellis 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes those two things were something I just translated ad hoc from the Norwegian article (rhinske gylden and geheimerådet i Edinburgh). I forgot to check them up afterwards, but I believe Valentinian has fixed them so they read the correct way now. Inge 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I hope so. I just noticed the message on your talk page. Speaking of Shetland, do you know how old the phrase "Med lov skal land bygges" is in a Norwegian context? I just noticed the similarity with the introduction to Jyske Lov from 1241. "Med lov skal land bygges(, men ville hver mand nøjes med sit eget og lade mænd nyde samme rettigheder, da behøvede man ikke en lov)" [1]. Do you know of a link to the Norwegian text? According to this webpage, Jyske Lov and Upplandslagen are related. [2]Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Frostatingslova is one of the oldest laws in Norway. Some rules are believed to be from the 900's, but the law itself is probably from Magnus the Good (1035-1047). The version which is preserved today is from about 1260. The full quote in that law is: med lov skal land byggjast, og ikkje med ulov øydast. ...not by unlaw destroyed (or something like that). The entire law is available in Norwegian as Frostatingslova, translated by Jan Ragnar Hagland and Jørn Sandnes,Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo 1994. Gulatingslova is the oldest law in Norway and is from before 900. Both laws were valid until 1274 when Magnus Lagabøtes landslov (including common measurements) was enacted for the entire country. I haven't been able to find a web page publishing the entire law. This link has three topics, but does not include the quote we want. Inge 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Willoch
Actually the quote was in the text under the image. But I agree with your edit. pertn 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I missed that. :)Inge 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 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 22:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Scandinavian / Nordic military task force
Hi Inge.
I hope you've had a pleasent Christmas. Have you seen that WPMILHIST is considering a Scandinavian or Nordic task force? (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Two_task_force_ideas). Given the mess with our he-who-must-not-be-named, I wonder if "Scandianvia" would be too problematic a term? It is more handy than "Nordic", but it seems to me like it would make sense to include the entire Nordic family, including Finland. Thoughts? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I had a very nice Christmas thank you. Hope you did as well. I see this issue has resolved itself the way I would have recommended (in line with your comments), and I have joined:).Inge 12:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Royal Norwegian Navy Schools coa.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Royal Norwegian Navy Schools coa.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I guess you've noticed the mess on WP:HV by now. Could you please check the image above and also the coat of arms for Bergen and Oslo? They're on Orphanbot's list as well. I've tried to get a few Norwegian items out of the mess but I have too little knowledge about some of them to dig up sorces. I've tagged a few with {{logo}}, and a few with {{symbol}} if I remember correctly, but please check Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006 for more images and go through the articles about Norwegian military / law / and police in case they need better sourcing. I can't really remember the exact names of the images I was working on, and they aren't even in the same location in my edit log.
- En eller anden gang, når der bliver to torsdage i en uge, skriver jeg til Brian Mikkelsen og beder Kulturministeriet se på spørgsmålet om officielle symboler næste gang den danske copyrightlov skal revideres. Heldigvis har alle 3 baltiske lande, Finland, Polen og Tyskland en eller anden form for tilsvarende lov. Dansk retspraksis plejer at have en forkærlighed for at udefra kommende input skal komme fra "lande vi normalt sammenligner os med". Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 13:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- And yes, I had a very nice Christmas. :) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have noticed "the troubles" and I am very annoyed with the whole thing. The template should have been kept to begin with. On the other hand some of the images are not marked with the correct copyright status tag. I would have preferred it if we could have gotten more time or at least a heads up before everything started going to pieces. I will join in the quest :) to save those images, but I fear many will be lost. Sort of the same thing that happened when someone suddenly decided to delete all FOTW images. That still hasn't been repaired!
- Ja jeg har lagt merke til at nordiske politikere har lett for å referere til hvordan ting blir gjort ellers i nabolaget. Dette har jo samtidig ført til at både Danmark og Norge har noe av de samme punktene i opphavsretten som gjør gjør arbeidet vårt vanskelig når vi må tilpasse det amerikansk tenkemåte på området. Vi får håpe det å gjøre ministrene oppmerksomme på problemene hjelper. Inge 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Det er uden tvivl den samme sang i Sverige. Jeg har hevet så godt som alt det der var let at omklassificere pga. nationale love ud af bunken. De billeder der er tilbage, er der ikke ret meget håb for (måske med undtagelse af Rumænien, Slovakiet eller lign.) Jeg brugte hele onsdagen på det og de svenske billeder har jeg reelt afskrevet. Vedr. fremtiden, så er danske politikere - trods rygter om det modsatte - normalt til at tale med. Så hvis man skærer sagen rigtigt og understreger at de eneste der vil have gavn af en sådan lovændring reelt er leksika, så burde det være muligt. I Danmark registreres officielle kommunevåbener i Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen men jeg har aldrig forstået hvorfor man aldrig bare lavede en generel lov der forbød misbrug af officielle symboler. Dvs. det skal skrives ind i copyrightloven at disse symboler er beskyttet af anden lov, f.eks. som det gøres i lettisk lov, se {{PD-Coa-Latvia}}. Man kan så stille spørgsmålet om alle danske leksika der nogensinde er udgivet allesammen huskede at kontakte styrelsen eller ringede rundt til samtlige kommuner og amter da de lavede deres oversigter. Men jeg kunne godt forestille mig at skrive til Mikkelsen og spørge hvordan man skal forholde sig når det gælde symbolerne for de tidligere amter og kommuner. Danmark har som bekendt lige afskaffet 180 af dem + 13 amter. Dvs. hvis kunstneren ejede nogen ret til symbolerne, hvor skal man så ringe hen og spørge om hans navn hvis både rådhus og amtsgård er lukket? Og hvis det ikke var kunstneren men f.eks. et amt der ejede deres symbol, hvem skal man så kontakte nu de er opløst? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ja, ingenting blir bedre dersom man ikke gjøre noe som helst. Jeg tror nok at man i praksis antar at våpen kan benyttes i leksika og lignende uten tillatelse eller kompensasjon. Det har nok de skriftlige forlagene gjort og det har de ikke blitt straffet eller anklaget for. Jeg har lagt inn en heads up på den svenske portalen og den australske task forcen på military history project. Det virker som om nesten hele samlingen av de våpnene kommer til å forsvinne. Inge 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jeg har skrevet til katolikkerne. Det samme sker med så godt som alle pavevåbener. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
<- I've started collecting a list of countries where official heraldry is PD by law, see User:Valentinian/Heraldry. Bulgaria was a disappointment, but I wouldn't be surprised this material is PD in the last three Central Asian nations + Slovakia and parts of the West Balkans (Serbia, Macedonia and / or Montenegro)? If you have the time and interest, feel free to modify it. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I see you have deleted this article and given the summary: "copyvio". I hope you would consider letting me have a second look at that article in order to rectify the objections you had to it. I try hard to avoid copyright violations and I think I have succeeded so far, but I do not remember the spesifics of this particular article. In any case I hope you could restore this article and in stead tell me what the problem was so I can correct it. Inge 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just about the whole thing was copied from here (the paragraph after "HM The King's Medal of Merit in Silver and Gold"). Unfortunately I have to recommend you start over--there's very little non-copyvio material to work with. FYI, you initially created the article on August 11 and 18. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)