User talk:Jao/2004

Swedish county maps

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you have made a number of edits to the Swedish Counties. I welcome type of maps you have added, as they indeed provide more detail for the counties. However the comments regarding copyright for the submitted images and the edits raises some concern.

You have stated for the submitted images that permission have been acquired to publish them on Wikipedia, and at same time referring to contingent copyright and that they may be subject to withdrawal. This is not compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License under which all content on Wikipedia is published. By uploading images or otherwise submitting information, you as the editor certify that the submitted material is not protected by copyright or any other restrictions, and by submission any future claims to copyright or attempts to withdraw already submitted material are essentially void.

Either the statements relating to copyright are wrong and should to be corrected, otherwise permission to publish them under GFDL has in fact not been acquired and steps to minimize damages should be taken as soon as possible, including deletion of the uploaded images.

Secondly, placement of the news maps is less well chosen and has been done with out regard for the existing template. Templates are used in order to give Wikipedia articles in a particular series a uniform layout and common form, often devised under a Wikiproject. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Swedish counties deals with this and you are most welcome to join and help develop the county articles.

Until the copyright issue has been resolved and a better placement of (these or) new maps can be made I will revert the changes. Best regards! -- Mic 18:56, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I'll have to read up on the GFDL. The exact phrasing was "Rätten att använda kartorna gäller tills dess att rätten eventuellt återtas av oss.", and I actually didn't even think of the possibility that this was not acceptable as far as publication here was concerned. (I contacted a few other places as well, but their responses ranged from straight negative to total silence.)

Also, thanks for informing me of the existence of templates (in general, and templates for Swedish counties in particular). Either I have been completely blind, or there is less than enough notification about such templates existing for an article when trying to edit it. -- Jao 13:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The uniformity of certain articles is in itself a hint that some form of template has been used, though the WikiProjects that define them live in relative obscurity. While we're on templates I think that the dukes and use of dukal titles in the royal family are a welcome addition the Swedish Provinces, though whether they ought to be placed under its own headline or not can be a matter of discussion. Also, I think you have done some really good work on the Bernadotte family and related articles. I noticed in a few edits by you that some curled apostrophe signs had mutated into question marks, like at Charles XIV of Sweden. It might be an idea to check this closer. -- Mic 17:36, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Dukes of Swedish provinces

I have made some improvements to accomodate information about the Dukes of the Swedish Provinces that was systematically added by you. There is now a space for them the the table, but a separate article which preserves information not fitted in the table has also been started. Take a look at Uplandia and Dukes of Swedish Provinces. -- Mic 12:35, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea to merge the dukes into the tables, but I feel they should be lowered a few notches (perhaps to just above the map). Certainly the provinces are more connected mentally with their flowers or animals than with whatever dukes they might have had. The general article is also a very good idea, but the plural title seems non-standard - perhaps List of Dukes of Swedish Provinces (which is what it will of course mostly be) in stead? -- Jao 20:34, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After adding the dukes to the table I have also been considering another sollution, namely that of introducing a new headline similar to "Notable natives" with a bullet listing of people from or associated with the province, and placing the dukes there. The plural form in Dukes of Swedish Provinces, was prompted by the fact that the singular form would be impossible. Fomulated as a list-entry the name looks proper, but that name also prevents it from developing into an article beyond the short introductory text. One way to solve that could be to place a shorter article text under a Sweden headline in Duke. -- Mic 10:46, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

It seems somewhat counter-intuitive to me to lable Royal Dukes as "natives" of their duchies. Usually they weren't born there, right? And with exception for Gustav Adolph, Duke of Scania, I wonder how many of them who really spent much time in their duchies. It's easy to foresee correcting edits and revertions. But... on the other hand, I do agree that the place in the narrow table maybe isn't ideal for a list of dukes.--Ruhrjung 22:59, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reinhard Heydrich

Jao, could you please help to improve the articles on Reinhard Heydrich and the SS? They are quite bad now. Besides I have the impression that many people (esp. Americans) see Nazis and members of the SS as a kind of evil robots but they were human, of course. Thanks in advance. Andries 19:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Personal union

Hej!

Välkommen hit, för övrigt.

Tack!

(Så här ser det ut när man gör "Post a comment".)

Så bra att du fyllde i den sedan länge tomma sidan om personal union. Den har stått på min att-göra-lista ungefär lika länge. :-)

Jag tror att Schleswig och Holstein (ibland hela hertigdömetna, ibland delar) borde stå med som personal-union med Danmark. 1460-1864 skulle jag tro är de aktuella årtalen. Lauenburg var under Glücksburg 1815-1864, och jag vet inte något om dess suveränitet, men det var ett litet hertigdöme, så det kan man nog bortse från helt och hållet.

Även om Fællesforfatningen mellom Schleswig och Danmark antogs i København den 13. november 1863, Fredrik 7. dog den 15 november, och Christian 9. promulgerade forfatningen den 18, så skulle den inte börja gälla förrän 1. januar 1864. Och eftersom kriget gick snabbt så spelar det ingen roll ifall t.ex. också Schleswigs stænder borde ha instämt för att forfatningen skulle kunna anses vara antagen? Freden i Wien är tecknad den 30. oktober.

Det saknas en hel del i listan, det är bara att fylla på. Alla bidrag är välkomna! Danmark och Schleswig-Holstein bör definitivt vara med, och dina årtal stämmer vad jag kan minnas. Vad gäller småstater (framför allt då inom det tysk-romerska riket) måste man nog dra gränsen någonstans, för att listan inte ska urarta till en oöverskådlig mängd relativt ointressant information. Jag håller med om att Lauenburg nog faller på "fel" sida den gränsen. -- Jao 09:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Att skriva på svenska på Engelska Wikipedia "feels like stepping out of character", men jag välkomnar också inlägget under "personal union". Det är framför allt två saker jag tänker på relaterat till Sverige. Dels förhållandet till Hesse-Kassel under Fredrik av Hessen (1730-51)och förhållandet till Finland. De finländska riksdelarna kom till Sverige så tidigt att de närmast är att betrakta som konstituerande delar, men vad var egentligen det statsrättsliga förhållandet? Jag minns att jag läst något om inkorporering eller union under sent 1700-tal. Sveriges förhållande till Hessen borde vara tillräckligt intressant för att falla på "rätt" sida. Unions of Sweden, den sista delen under Realm of Sweden har funnits på min att-göra-lista ett tag nu. -- Mic 10:46, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

My fault! I got the transient impulse to use the language I've studied most recently - for a brief greeting - on the user talk page of a Swede, NB!

By all means use the form of communication that you prefer, I was merely expressing my own concerns, after deciding not only to barge in on the discussion I was refraining from also switching language. Now, that such a change has already taken place it is another matter. :) The main reason for a preference of using English also in the dialogue also with other Swedish speakers, is a courtesy to those not able to follow the discussion otherwise. So, in this perspective using other languages might even a bit rude. No offense though!

With regard to Finland, I would guess that a normative Finnish view is that what then counted as Finland was practically incorporated in the 14th century, although Queen Margrete and her followers attempted to raise the status of Finland and thereby diminish Swedish influence and increase the Danish influence over Finland. According to such a line of thought, the periods of margravate status for Wiburg, or all of the Eastern Land, can be compared to 19th century (?) examples of a General Gouvernement in Scania.--Ruhrjung 03:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It might be noted, though, that John III and Sigismund used Grand Duke of Finland as a subsidiary title, and Charles IX eventually began calling himself King of the Finns. I'm quite sure this didn't affect reality in any way, but as for the strictly formal relation - I don't really know how to interpret it. -- Jao 10:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I recollect the (sparse) nobility in Finland to have been more favorably inclined to the Polish-Lithuanian alliance/union then their counterparts in mainland Sweden, and I think I have read about the background to the introduction of the Grand Duke title along the lines that King Johan III was created Duke of Finland during the war 1555-1557 against Ivan IV the Terrible of Russia, and that the "Grand" was merely added when he ascended to the throne partly to emphasize that "Finland" was a large and important area close to the king's heart :-), which ought to be compared not with other duchies but with Svealand and Götaland. Thereby inflating the egos of the Finnish nobility and the Swedish rulers at the same time as countering claims on Finland and Carelia made by Russian rulers.--Ruhrjung 10:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In power political terms Sweden was definately the party exercising control over Finland, but I am dissatisfied over the lack of clarity on the situation.

Are you really sure of that? Also after 1362/64? And after 1544 (or whenever Gustav Vasa started using the Estate of the Peasants for purpose of legitimity)?--Ruhrjung 22:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe it was badly phrased, it was rather my assumption.

Compare with the situation for Ireland where the English monarchs were exercising control, first as Lords of Ireland, then as Kings of Ireland and then finally as Kings in Ireland after the union with Great Britain in 1801. What was the position of Finland versus Sweden during this time? Was it an "organic" expansion on the Swedish kingdom where the monarch immidiately became King in the conquered provinces, or was Finland ever an entity separate from Sweden? -- Mic 11:15, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

In the eyes of fringe nationalist organisations in Finland, yes. But at least no historian I've read would follow on that road. Just as Sweden hardly existed as a coherent state before Christianization, so did Finland not. I think 1809 distorts our view. We should rather think of "Finland" as an entity similar to "Norrland" or "Småland" when it comes to the relation between state and land. And at the end of the period, in the 18th century, the provinces which would constitute Finland of 1812 were seemingly considered old Swedish provinces (although in the periphery, just like Dalecarlia and Wermland or the new Swedish provinces won from Denmark). All this written more than a year after my last study of a book on Sweden's 18th century, for which I apologize!

The mother tongue aspect (Gaelic-English, Finnish-Swedish) is probably unhistorical to apply. The language of the peasantry was often another than that of the state's administration, but so it was in Wermland and Scania aswell. The great surge of mother-tongue based nationalism came first after the Napoleonic wars (the defeat so humiliating for the Germans). In Finland mother tongue became an issue in the mid-19th century, as far as I remember. --Ruhrjung 22:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the mother-tongue aspect, though the comparison by concept has crossed my mind, but rather the existance of even the postulate of a state theory. -- Mic 20:25, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Good additions to Personal Union, but I have one question. What about the position of the Irish Free State versus the other Commonwealth Realms from 1922? -- Mic 18:34, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it should be considered part of the Commonwealth Realms. But then again, if we should list all countries that have been such (and I don't see a reason not to), the list would be quite complex. I'm not sure I could work all that history out myself. -- Jao 21:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lady Mountbatten

A reply to a query at Emsworth's talk page

I think it would make sense to have Patricia Mountbatten, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma. But in general, in articles on peers, the trend seems to be (for some reason) using all forenames. -- Emsworth 13:31, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

List of magicians

Hi there, I've noticed you've added 'Joe Labero' to the list. I don't know who he is. I presume a Swedish magician. Any and all info is welcome to add to his article. If you don't have the time to write the article yourself, please help me find English info to use.

If you happen to be knowledgeable on magic (illusion) you might want to consider joining the WikiMagic Project.

Sincerely, --MGM 22:48, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he's a Swedish magician, from Alvesta, and his stage name comes from his real name LArs BEngt ROland JOhansson. And well, apart from having seen him on stage twice, I really don't know much more than you. If you are interested in writing an article, please go ahead and do so. There is a "history" at the website of his show that looks quite comprehensive. It also states that he has won two Merlin awards, and my never having heard of this award probably answers the question of whether I'm knowledgeable on the subject. =) -- Jao 23:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Naming conventions and Swedish monarchs

As you might have noticed there are a number of issues surrounding the naming used for Wikipedia articles on the Swedish monarchs. A recent debacle regarding the naming of the Gustavus Adolphus article prompted me to try to adress these issues at the talk page at Talk:List of Swedish monarchs. Simultaneously it might be worthwile to consider your suggestion relating to the list and the King of Sweden article. When I created the King of Sweden article I intended for that to deal primarily with the Monarch as the constitutional (post 1974) head of state of Sweden, primarily dealing with the political aspect of the "office". I'm no longer sure that such a distinction is possible and the answer to your suggestion might be to create a new article at Swedish monarch or similar, to integrate most aspects of the Swedish monarchy there. Whether the complete list should be part of such an article could be determined at a later stage. -- Mic 12:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Naval Officers (and Army and Airforce to come I assume)

Excellent (and possibly better) delvelopment on comparative military ranks. Perhaps also include Russia and China as signiifcant to World military Dainamo

Certainly they should be there, and at least Japan as well, probably several more. To tell the truth, I have stuck to latin alphabet languages for simplicity. I hope someone more suited will complete the task. And yes, I will begin the army and air force officer rank tables too, if nobody else does. -- Jao 10:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lady v The Lady

To reproduce the information Proteus placed on my talk page:

"The" should always be there, and if it isn't it's simply been missed out, and isn't a sign of some deeper pattern. (The only exception is Lady Marion Fraser (no "The"), who is not the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl but is a Lady of the Order of the Thistle (all other Ladies of that Order and of the Order of the Garter have higher styles), since her style of "Lady" is equivalent to "Sir" and is not connected to the similar style of "The Lady" given to the daughters of some peers.) To make it even more complicated, the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms don't like the definite article being given to such daughters, while successive Lord Chamberlains have insisted they are entitled to it, along with courtesy peers, who are referred to in the Court Circular as, for instance, "the Lord Seymour", a practice condemned by the CoA. So, with even the experts in disagreement, there's not much hope for any of us to know for certain what's right and what's wrong. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anglicised Monarch's names Pedro versus Peter

Thanks for assisting so quickly our quandary over the proper name for the page on "Pedro II of Brazil." I moved the page name back to "Peter II of Brazil."

But I have a question. Should I move Wilhelm II of Germany to William II of Germany? ---Rednblu 08:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would seem consistent, but probably not appreciated. This is from Talk:Juan Carlos of Spain: "Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos." And this is from Talk:Haile Selassie of Ethiopia: "Modern monarchs are all in the form of [[{Name} {ordinal if more than one} of {name of state}]], with the name used in english unless a native name is used also in english or there is no english equivalent. (eg, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia not Tsar Nikolai II, Kaiser Wilhelm II not Kaiser William II)." So there are exceptions to the rule, and Wilhelm seems to be one. And so perhaps I was a bit rough, and Pedro/Peter should be an exception, too? I just haven't seen any arguments for Pedro being the more common name for him in English. Where does the Britannia put him, for example? That could serve as a guideline. -- Jao 09:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Consistent, but probably not appreciated." Yep. That sounds right to me. :)) Britannica puts both Peter I and II of Brazil under "Pedro." But they also put a lot of early Pedros of Portugal under Peter. So they have a very relaxed set of rules. My cursory sampling of monarchs' names in the Britannica would be consistent with giving monarchs Anglicized names if they have been dead for over two hundred years. So maybe you have accurately stated the rule: "Consistent, but probably not appreciated" with the understanding that the cost-benefit balance between "consistent" and "not appreciated" shifts somewhere around 150 to 200 years.  :)) ---Rednblu 14:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After consulting the digital archives of the London Times for the 1800s and finding many, many references to Dom Pedro of Brazil and none for "Peter of Brazil," I propose the following. First, "Peter II of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro II of Brazil;" similarly for his father "Peter I of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro I of Brazil." Second, that Wikipedia should adopt the Anglicized monarch name if the London Times did at the time; similarly Wikipedia should adopt the native monarch name if the London Times did at the time. ---Rednblu 16:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The London Times solution might be a bit flawed, as the tendency is towards non-anglicized/non-normalized names for living people. At least it has been so for some time, I don't know really about the 19th century. But I think it might be quite right to have the Pedros of Brazil at Pedro. My comments on the talk page were more a reaction to the French analogy (which was seriously flawed) than anything else, really, and if evidence is Pedro is the more common usage in English, then Pedro it should be. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to Talk:Pedro II of Brazil and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) alike, so it will be more visible for those interested. -- Jao 17:37, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am copying this dialog right now. I also posted a comment to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). ---Rednblu 17:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hej och tack! I've not been active here for very long, but I will probably be in the near future, as my project List of Swedish regiments will take quite a while to finish if I'm going to write separate articles about all regiments. :) But, of course I can contribute in other places too.

Of the listed articles that are stubs or could use a brush-up or more information, the branches of the Swedish Armed Forces, and maybe the officer ranks are the subjects most interresting to me. I'm not much into Sweden's 20th century history, but I might add a little to that one if I've got nothing else to do.

BTW, I had a little dilemma before starting my regiments' articles, writing the names in Swedish or English? I know that you should try to write the English names as often as possible, but as I worked my way through the list of names of regiments, I came to the conclusion that trying to translate medieval, renaissance and modern Swedish military terms was really hard. What do you think?

feldgrau 14:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for article un-deletion

Hello. I noted your recent support for the Empire of Atlantium article on VfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium The most recent VfD resulted in 19 people (40%) voting to retain vs 29 (60%) voting to delete. Despite the fact that the count was fully 9 votes short of achieving a 2/3 consensus, the article was deleted by a sysop. Because this appears to contravene VfD policy I have listed the article for un-deletion, which you might care to review and support, if you feel it is a valid listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion --Gene_poole 23:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)