Andejons

Eftersom du blockerat mig från svensk wikipedia tycker jag at dui kan bckera BjörnF från att kontakat mig eller at redigera min sida öht något mer. Din barnsliga attityd med blockeringen i två timmar gör inte saken bättre. Näre du blockerar någon så skall du se till att en giltig epostadress om du skall kunna bli nådd. Jag känner mig dömd ensidigt av dig genom ditt handlande. SingleStar 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stay off my talk page! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Retracted SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden". Thank you.

I would appreciate if you would avoid using this kind of language in your edit summaries, whether or not I am involved. Such judgmental opinions of yours, classifying the work of other editors as "nonsense", is not appropriate. That kind of language does nothing to further the interests of English WP or an agreeable working climate here. Cordially. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

PS: Your edit in itself was OK. The language of that sentence was in fact impossible because I had left too many words there. I have clarified it now, without having to mention the "Blot-Sven" epithet more than once in "her" article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The sentence was nonsense, not the intent behind it. I should perhaps have used another word to make my meaning clearer. But I don't see the problem of referring to Blot-Sven. He's the figure mentioned in that article that's the most likely to have actually existed, even if we don't know what his name was.

Andejons (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

If that was an apology of sorts, I accept and appreciate it very much. Basically your POV here is OK by me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you make a more precise habit of this kind of edit warring rather than waiting for a discussion to take place, I'm afraid I'll have to report you. Please try to be more patient, even when you are certain you're right! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kol of Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sverker of Sweden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Andejons, thanks for creating Eric and Eric!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Lack of references and citations should be addressed immediately. I personally do not plan to, but others might be quick to nominate this article for deletion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Where in this source does it say anything about the English word "geat"? I couldn't find anything. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't. It does say that it means "götarnas land". If you want to dispute the translation of "götar" to "Geats", I think discussion:Geats is the place to start, instead of spreading the discussion over all related pages.

Andejons (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The source tag was placed after that word. We have no source yet for "land of the Geats" as an English term. May I reverse your edit? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

If I understand you right, it is not the etymology per se you have issues with, just translation into English? If so, I would suggest that it would be better to write "land of the Götar" than to suggest that the etymology is in question.

Andejons (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

How do you feel about this, in the Götaland article:

• Götaland once consisted of petty kingdoms, which its inhabitants called Gautar in Old Norse. It is generally agreed that these were the same as the Geats, the people of the hero Beowulf in England's national epic, Beowulf.

And by whom is it generally agreed - do you know? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it's not very good - the first sentence is clearly false (I've corrected it). As for the second, my impression is that those that write about this in Swedish today generally accept it as an identification, but that they don't really consider it to mean anything much more than that the name and general geographic area is the same. You could perhaps compare it with the stories about the visit of the Burgundians to King Etzels court i Niebelungenlied: everyone agrees that Etzel is based on Attila the Hun, but you can't take story as a serious source for anything regarding him. In the same vein, the Beowulf poet probably means Beowulf to come from a tribe in what is today southern Sweden, but anything beyond that is doubtful.

Andejons (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, thanks! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sail ho, matey!

You're invited to comment on the FAC of the article on Kronan.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look. Again, I have more knowledge of the general political situation than the particulars of the battle.

Andejons (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Götaland theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mission. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see you have changed my close. This is not a good idea. Especially when one of the respondents changes the wording of a closer. I have changed it back to the original wording. I recommend leaving it alone as everything is archived. AlbinoFerret 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't agree with your summary, or the edit comment. As far as I can see, both OrangeMike and Brianann MacAmhlaidh agreed that the coins were OK as long as the theory was of note, while Darouet agreed with SergeWoodzing that they should be included. How this is a consensus for inclusion without anything to back up the claim that theory is of note is beyond me.

Andejons (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not agreeing does not make it OK to change the wording of a closing by a neutral editor. That's what AlbinoFerret wrote to you about here. I wish you'd take that to heart, maybe even apologize for that no-no, rather than acting like you're innocent of it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John III of Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poland-Lithuania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! English words often have many meanings and it can take many years of having English as a first language to get a handle on most of them. Here, for example, you will find "belligerent" as a synonym of "strident". The latter word is often used with the exact same meaning as Swedish "stridslysten". More faith from you in my usage of my first language, which I have taught for many years, would be very much appreciated. Cheers! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it is a good idea to use a meaning that can only be found deep down in The free dictionary. That seems to be a sure way to invite misunderstanding. Similarly, would not "eager" be better than "anxious"? The latter would to me suggest someone who is easily scared, rather than someone seeking fights.

Andejons (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, it would not, since "orolig" can never be translated as "eager", and more faith from you in my usage of my first language, which I have taught for many years, would be very much appreciated. I really feel ridiculous discussing this with you. Let me know something that you've worked with successfully for 50 years, that I have not much experience in, and I'll come in and criticize your work on that as if I knew what I was talkng about! Then you'll know how offensive this is to me, and maybe you won't do it anymore. Please! Feels like a form of harassment, actually. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, since your English apparently is above critisism, I must assume that it is your Swedish that is at fault. "Orolig" does not mean 'anxious' in this context. It means 'restless'.

Andejons (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

My English is not above criticism, nobody's is. Who said it is? I didn't. Don't be sarcastic please!

I need more help with my Swedish than with my first language, and I always appreciate such help (hint hint hint).

"Orolig" does not mean "eager" - that's the error you made which I replied to. If you'd like to change "anxious" to "restless", that's OK, and that may very well have been what Starbäck meant back in the 1850s, rather than using "rastlös".--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! Re: King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden, thought you might like to take a look at the refs added for his epithet the Great on this project and then rethink your recent action on the Swedish article. As you know, I am no longer active there. Regards, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason to change the Swedish article. He is almost never talked about as "Gustav Adolf den store"; only one of the sources appears to be in Swedish, and if it manages to talk about him for nearly five hundred pages without using that apithet, it is certainly not a common one. "Gustav Adolf den store" is a curiosity, not a used name.

Andejons (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nja... Ahnlund, Fryxell and Riksmarskalkämbetet not Swedish?

OK, but I respectfully suggest you try to find a way to explain the "MAGNUS" on his sarcophagus, even in Swedish and on that project. We are supposed to provide knowledge about such conspicuous things, I think, and that can be very confusing to visitors of all nationalities. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

That they are from Sweden does not mean that they are writing in Swedish. Ahnlund and Roberts are writing in English. Riksmarskalkämbetet is only giving the inscription of his sarcophagus, which is in Latin. This site appears to reprint Fryxell, where he even says that the formal decision did not have much effect ("Det har icke blifvit iakttaget"); furthermore, Fryxell's books is now a hundred years old. Even if it might possibly be useful as a source for the life of G2A, it is not very useful in determining what he is called today.

The fundamental problem here is not that there is doubt whether anyone ever has called him "Gustav Adolf den store". It is that the name is actually almost never used by scholars or in mainstream discussions beyond mentioning that he was honored with that name. If you talk about him as "Gustav Adolf den store" today, you be perceived as odd, possibly with strong nationalistic and/or militant evangelical leaning. Giving the impression that the name is in wide use is not to "provide knowledge", it is to misrepresent reality.

Andejons (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I respectfully suggest - again - that you try to find a way to explain the "MAGNUS" on his sarcophagus, even in Swedish and on that project. We are supposed to provide knowledge about such conspicuous things, I think, and that can be very confusing to visitors of all nationalities. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

If something is confusing, it is insisting on names that today is almost never used. That "Gustav Adolf den store" (or translations) have been used in a few instances is true, but those are very few. His sarcophagus happens to be one of them, but it does hardly seem reasonable to suggest that Wikipedia should cover up for any deficit in tourist guides to explain details of different objects.

Andejons (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are you avoiding the issue, or just misunderstanding me several times. I've now been trying to ask you to try to find and add Swedish wording to svWP which explains the words on his sarcophagus (the words on his sarcophagus) - that's all. Since we are supposed to inform, reasonably, that suggestion is reasonable. I hope that's clear now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Apparently misunderstanding you - which is not surprising since your first message was about my "recent action", by which I must suppose you meant this, which had nothing to do with any sarcophagus.

Andejons (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Very good work has been done on the Swedish article re: the sarcophagus since we discussed this. I can't tell if you were involved, but it's a great imporvement in that small detail. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Age of Liberty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Copenhagen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed here, if I'm not mistaken, that it is your opinion that the Swedish Government does not include the head of state and his staff. Did I misunderstand you?

Also, I've now asked another couple of questions about that edit on the article's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The King has not been part of the government, not even formally, for over 40 years. The Royal Court is actually not even a government agency ("mydighet").

Andejons (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

My question, to be more specific, was: do you think the head of state of Sweden is a part of the Swedish Government? A yes or no answer would be fine. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not a matter of what I think. The King is not a part of the Government. Furthermore: The King is not the same as the Royal court. You are confusing three different things here.

Andejons (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

These are your opinions, not indisputable facts, unless you can back the statements up with convincing evidence. I asked you for your opinion, without crticizing you. Everyone has the right to their opinions. You, me, everybody. My opinion on this question is not set yet. It's a new question for me. If I can't ask you in a friendly manner for your opinion, without being criticized, lectured and scolded, then we are having a very hard time communicating. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, the only thing I can perceive from your statement on the detail I asked about, anyway, is that the head of state in the case of Sweden, is not a part of the government. OK. By that I assume you mean he is some form of the non-executive model described in our article. It does not clearly state, though that he is not included in the Swedish government Government. If you can find a reliable source to cite and support your opinion, it might be a good idea for you to add that there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whether the King is part of the Government is a matter of law, not opinion. Regeringsformen, Kap 6 §1: "Regeringen består av statsministern och övriga statsråd.", 'The Government consists of the Prime minister and the other ministers'.

Furthermore, this all started when you piped a link to the Royal Court and called it the Government. The Royal Court is an institution that answers to the Monarch directly. It is not part of the Government, it is not an agency of the Government.

Andejons (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

In English, the Swedish Government is not the same thing as "Regeringen" as described in the Swedish Constitution. "Staten" in Swedish is more like the English meaning of the term. What needs to be clarified, ergo, is whether or not "statsöverhuvudet" (the head of state) is to be considered a part of "staten" (the Swedish Gov't).

I know what I did, in good faith. Then I wrote to you in a civil manner and asked for your opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You first asked about the "Swedish Government". Capitalised. When capitalised, it refers to "Regeringen" and nothing else. The King is not part of that. Now you instead ask about the "Swedish government", no extra capitalisation. This is not as well-defined a concept, but yes, the King does have a few functions in the governmening of Sweden.

However, the Royal Court is clearly not part of the Swedish government. It has no governing rôle, it is not a government agency.

Andejons (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Swedish Government is not the same thing as "Regeringen", more like "staten". "Regeringen" is the executive branch of the Swedish Government but not all of it by far. It would never be correct in English to write the Swedish government - always a capital G. Sorry about that typo - corrected now above. Thanx for noticing it. I make a lot of them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Go and look up "government" in a dictionary (Meriam Webster is freely available). I don't have the energy to continue to try to correct your misconceptions.

Andejons (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Regeringen" = the Government = one the most common Swenglish errors. I know what I'm talking about and you are out of energy. Impasse. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The move was a good one, but I don't know if it was a good idea to remove "Johan II" completely from that article, as if he has never been called that in any mainstream literature at all. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider that with these sources?. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather avoid information contained in sources that I have not read myself. Quoting third hand is tricky.

Andejons (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello! Is it your opinion that one of the escutcheons at the bottom of this image represents the House of Eric (Erikska ätten)? If so, the one on the left, I assume? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but hard to tell. One of them should be the Bjälbo dynasty CoA, the other is the arms of Knut Långe (who minted coins with the same CoA on it). Knut's parentage is rather murky (see sv:Knut Långe for details), but there is a distinct possibility that he belonged to the House of Eric. However, Coats of arms could be changed between generations, so it is also possible that this particular one was only used by Knut and his sons. (I wonder why you didn't use this picture you uploaded? It is clearly superior and shows the escutcheons more clearly. Knut's is clearly the one to the left).

Andejons (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I found & uploaded the color image after I wrote this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Part of my edit summary on Canute II asked you to see (& use) the talk page. Please explain your edit there and never start what looks like an edit war without using talk. Would you like me to quote you "do not have Lagerqvist's book and can thus not include material from it." as a reason to revert? Never saw anything like it before. Shall we spend days, weeks and years reverting & deleting stuff all over fore a reason like that? You could have left Lagerqvist in there in your rewite. You should have done that, in my opinion. Constructive suggestion: just put it back! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is nice to see you back on English Wikipedia. I have seen you remove a lot of text, and it seems from your edit summaries that you consider yourself to be somewhat of an expert on Swedish history. Maybe you can consider adding information too? We need good editors who add referenced information here, even more than those who remove text they don't approve of.--Berig (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I might. If I don't have to spend time on cutting down on enourmous rambling paragraphs or material that do not reflect the sources, that is.

Andejons (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

And also, please use the talkpages for discussions, instead of the edit summaries. That is what they are for :-). Removal of information without consensus is frowned upon on Wikipedia.--Berig (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, note that as long as you don't reach consensus for your version, you risk being reverted.--Berig (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was a bit surprised by your removal here. Pritsak says that the names were likely collected later in Västergötland. What form of transmission do you think Pritsak refers to? In mainstream academia, that kind of information in Iron Age and Viking Age Scandinavia is assumed to have been transmitted orally in the form of heroic poetry. This is a topic I am working on right now with Ermenrich, and so I am very curious about what you know and what references you can provide. What kind of alternative means of transmission do you have in mind that made you remove my text?--Berig (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure exactly what part of the text you want my reasoning for, but I will try my best. It seems to me that Pritsak attempts to distinguish between two groups of names - the first being Danparstadir, Dúnheidr and Jassarfjöll and the second being Reid-Gotaland and Gardariki -, and that the first of these groups are relevant to the migration period, but the latter are younger, and collected in Västergötland. He says nothing about how and where the poem was composed; it is left open if it was composed in Västergötland, or somewhere else but incorporating traditions from Västergötland. Other sources might, of course, be more definite on the matter.

Andejons (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the parenthesis he just notes that Reid-Gotaland would have a dual identification with the older territory Gardariki, and a new one with Jutland (that Snorri later would make in his Edda, as the location original territory had been forgotten by then). He does not mention another group/layer of place names that were added in the text. So, all we have is a number of place names from Ukraine and southern Russia that somehow had been preserved, and Pritsak is of the opinion that they were collected in Västergötland having Old Norse forms from around 800.--Berig (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, that seems like a plausible reading. The text is, as you noted yourself, not very clear.

Andejons (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hmm - the Hlöðskviða does not mention Reid-Gotaland, Jutland, or Gardariki, as far as I can tell? They are in the prose saga. (Danparstadir is also from the prose, but there is a verse that mentions "Danpar", so close enough).

Andejons (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

He is writing for the specialists here. Pritsak is usually very clear and easy to read. I am doing some research into the scholarship of the origins of Hervarar saga, in order to better represent the scholarly views in which he writes it. Since it partly takes place in Sweden, and it has Gothic material, it appears to be based on Swedish traditions and that is what Pritsak refers to when he writes about Västergötland. There is also evidence of Swedish medieval ballads related to the matter. The forms of the Gothic names are in Old Norse, which was spoken from c. 750 and onwards, and so the date 750-850 represents a dating of these Old Norse forms. I know that you think proper sourcing is very important, so I am surprised that you haven't spotted the problems in House of Munsö. Please help me out, there.--Berig (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm not totally convinced what sort of distinction he means to make, but it seems to minor to argue about.

I'll take a look at the house of Munsö - though I must say that I don't really like that name; it is based on one modern theory which I think is at least partially debunked.

Andejons (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! There are so many other things that distract me here. It needs to be named according to WP:NAME, but unfortunately Ngram view is useless here[1]. On Google "the House of Uppsala" gets more than 52 000 hits, while "the House of Munsö" gets less than than 10% of that, so "House of Uppsala" seems to be the right choice.--Berig (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I get similar results from Google Scholar as well, but they mostly seem to refer to the Ynglings (or actual buildings in Uppsala) [2].

Andejons (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any experience with templates for family trees? Svwiki has one based on the Hervarar saga, sv:mall:munsöätten, which I think might be a useful addition, but it requires a bit of translation.

Andejons (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do, but it was more than 15 years ago. I will try.--Berig (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have translated the family tree you asked for, and for convenience, I made a template out of it: {{Houseofuppsala}}.--Berig (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I have been looking to see if I could find some secondary source for the tree, but no luck. I think it should still be acceptable to just source it to Hervarar saga directly.

Andejons (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

And of course, some parts of it was not directly from the saga, but from other sources. At least, it was not too hard to fix that. Andejons (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

I was very surprised by this edit. You write in the summary "This painting is showing the actual battle, not the aftermath". Can you see *anyone* fighting? I believe everybody else sees happy people celebrating.--Berig (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Look at the shieldmaiden holding the red banner. The other hand is wrestling over a sword after she has attacked. The raised weapons seems to be raised to strike, not in celebration. Here is also a more detailed description of what is depicted.

Andejons (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Funny, yes, the museum describes the battle as going on. However, when I look Harald Wartooth looks dead, while the shieldmaiden and the man she is holding, and many other people, seem to be smiling. I concede here, but only because the description of the museum says otherwise.--Berig (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hugh Hamilton, 1st Viscount of Glenawly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malcolm Hamilton. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

If he belongs in Category:Vikings killed in battle then he belongs in Category:12th-century Vikings . Rathfelder (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

He does not belong there either. I will remove him from that category.

Andejons (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's fine by me. Rathfelder (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You went to a lot of trouble (thank you) on the talk page commenting extensively on lead text there, mostly on a paragraph that I have only been a bit involved with. Seems to me it could have saved you time if you had just altered the article text the way you wanted to see it, most of which would have been OK by me. Mvh --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please so not remove well-source scholarly info from Wikipedia articles as you did recently in Culture of Sweden. Also please do not insert political slant or propaganda. Wikipedia is to maintain a strictly NPOV. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you want to discuss a particular article, use its talk page.

Andejons (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

User talk pages are for discussing our behavior as Wikipedia contributors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no interest in such a discussion with you.

Andejons (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

English Wikipedia guidelines and administrators require that we users warn each other on each other's talk pages before reporting behavioral incidents for administrative review. If you wish to ignore such warnings, that can only backfire on you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have been asked before not to engage in edit warring yet you have done so again here to try to push your opinions through after only 2 hours, in spite of a good citation. English Wikipedia does not allow edit warring. First we talk and reach consensus on an article's talk page, giving other editors a chance to opine, and we then change article after consensus or through compromise. Please never edit war! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please stop edit warring at Culture of Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised that you would make an edit like this to add your own opinions but disregarding the cited source which you left in place. Mistake? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Most of the material is irrelevant, having nothing to do with Odin. The central part that was about him said that he was considered the first "King of Sweden", saying that this came out of Johannes Magnus. This is simply wrong. Johannes Magnus starts with Magog, and continues with Sveno, and then a couple of other kings before mentioning a king named Oden in passing [3]. The god Odin is also mentioned but is not said to be a king of Sweden. Starting with Odin is a feature of Heimskringla but not very many other sources.

Andejons (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please do not change article text to conform to your own opinions while disregarding and leaving (!) a cited reliable source. That's what I wrote to you about here. The rest of your opinions about content belongs on the article's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see that you used a source to specifically trace the name Carl to Old West Norse [4]. Since I could not find any support for that information in the source and I don't approve of erroneous attributions, I was curious to find out who had made it. Maybe I am not reading the source properly so I wonder if you, please, can explain to me how the source specifically gives Old West Norse as the origin of the name.--Berig (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Strange - there was a page number provided, so I'm pretty sure you should have been able to find the relevant entry. Anyway, I'll quote it so that not everyone reading this will have to open the PDF:

"Karl mn.

Fda. Karl (äv. som binamn), fsv. Karl (äv. som binamn), fvn. Karl (äv. som binamn)

Av (fvn.) karl m. 'fri man' [...]"

Does that clear things up sufficiently?

Andejons (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply