User talk:SergeWoodzing

I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1: 2009-2015. Created by --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... actually belongs on the talk page of an article, please put it there, not here! Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... (like anybody can be once in a while) please don't be condescending, sarcastic, belligerent or rude here! Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Princess Margaretha of Sweden may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | <center>[[File:Armoiries de la Princesse Marguerite du Danemark.svg|250px]]]{{clear}}Marital arms of Princess Margaretha of Sweden and Denmark
• | <center>[[File:Princesse Margaretha du Danemark.svg|155px]]]{{clear}}Arms as displayed in [[Riddarholmen Church]] in [[Stockholm]]</center>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SergeWoodzing! I wanted to leave you a message to give you a hug and offer my empathy regarding your frustration at the ANI today. In the thread, I tried to provide a level-headed response and explain where opportunities could have been improved on both sides of the table. However, before I could offer you my personal assistance and diffuse the situation for everybody involved, other responses were posted on the ANI that were absolutely not constructive or acceptable from a participant at ANI, and they made the situation much much worse (the opposite of what I was trying to do). I completely understand your frustration today, as well as the fact that the ANI thread left you feeling even more frustrated, even more attacked and criticized, and with your feelings left completely ignored.

Speaking on behalf of the administrators and experienced editors that participate at ANI: ...we are expected to assume good faith, listen to both sides of the story, diffuse the situation, offer a level-headed and local analysis of the situation without jumping to conclusions or taking sides, and do our best to make sure that the discussion ends with everyone involved feeling satisfied and listened to. I feel like this did not happen in your ANI discussion today. And for that, I'm very very sorry, and I feel very disappointed that you were treated the way that you were. While I feel that the discussion started off in a fair manner, and with fair statements made, it certainly did not end this way. We missed an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership and maturity that comes with being an experienced editor, and we failed at our job.

I encourage you to take some time, let emotions and frustrations cool down, and allow yourself to move on and (hopefully) take some part of this (even if it's very small) and see it as a positive learning experience. I also want you to know that my talk page is always open to you, and that you're more than welcome to message me if you want to talk, if you have concerns that you want to express, or if you need someone to help you with anything. I promise that I will treat with respect and I will do my best to help you with anything that you need regarding Wikipedia. I hope you have a good weekend, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the nicest thing that has ever been done to me by another Wikipedian. It's been many lonely years. My heartfelt thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you falsely accuse others of OWNing an article with no proof ("You yo not own this article") I will happily file a report on you at ANI. there is no OWNership here, but there is some disrtuption caused by uncivil editors making false accusations. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pressed enter too early, by mistake, and removed that at once. You weren't supposed to see it. I'm amazed you even did. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided is probably not a lasting source, since that list in the margin will have him bumped down pretty soon. Any other more reliable source at hand? His fame should have garnered some attention by media. Strangnet (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that's an official site of the City of Stockholm. If the city of Stockholm says he died on May 1st, he died on May 1st, and that's reliable. And this belongs on the article's talk page, not here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the official web site of Stockholm, which is stockholm.se. And the data is retrieved from an external service called Ratsit. --Strangnet (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: this belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Please do not continue it on my talk page, it does not concern me personally. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commoner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royalty. 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) 10:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added a partial citation to Faust Landmark that does not enable readers to find the book. The title is incomplete, the author is missing, and the ISBN is invalid. Can you please complete the citation? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that book of memoirs is complete, exactly like this: "Det var en gång ...". The author's name is not missing, it's Carl Johan Bernadotte. The correct ISBN is 91-0-046018-4, which was the victim of 2 typos on my part. Sorry! Thank you for pointing that error out to me! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS Actually, only one typo, now that I checked. You added the 2 dashes at the end of the number. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems that you take prince Bernadotte very personell.we did not have any "issue". We discussed if the source was good or not. You did not agree with us, although we gave good reasons. Of course you have the right to ask others to say their opinion, and that was good. By doing so you saw that those people also thought like we did... Which means that we were not wrong, and then it was not an issue. By writing "other neutral users" all the time makes it very personal against the first users who objected against that specific source. You writes very nice not to write personal on the talk pages, but by writing that way you do it your self. And yes, I am neutral. Adville (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were right, and I was wrong about how that source was cited.

I will continue to ask for neutral comments, which I find the most helpful to all of us, whether or not you choose to take offense at that, which I think most anyone else can see is not what I intend. It's one of the cornerstones of progress on English Wikipedia, as far as I have seen and learned: neutral comments - asking and waiting for them.

If it is so important to you to keep rubbing it in that all you Swedes (since "we" is what you write) were right and I was wrong in this case, I must tell you that at this point in time I find it (1) extremely (!!!) tiresome and (2) uncessarily aggressive of you to keep repeating that in different wordings, time and again. Please stop it! I'm sure you don't agree, but I'm telling you how I feel, and you can only change that by getting off my back. As I've just recently been through quite a traumatic ordeal on svWP, of which you are very much aware, and which damaged me psychologically, I'd appreciate it very much if you'd leave me alone for a while now, 100%. Is that too much to ask of you? I won't stalk you, harass you or look for any arguments with you at all, and I hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to be kind to me now. I'd sleep better at night, that's for sure.

Please do not reply!--SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Seems OK to start adding redirects as per here 6 October 2016. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Re: svWP treatment here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you added a reference in the middle of the first sentence. What fact do you believe this reference is supporting? Right now, it is not clear. --JBL (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling of her original full name, which varies on some other Internet articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to thank you for your understanding about the questions you had with Acirams edits.I really ment that you did correct to go to other users to get it solved instead of risking a conflict that no one would be a winner in.

Because you have been a long time contributor on svwp I also want to tell you the sad news that Obelix (talk · contribs) passed away two weeks ago. I know you had your arguments, but I think you should know. Best regards, Adville (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thank you. I'm still in touch with my watchlist on svWP so I knew that sad news. I had very good cooperation with Obelix for a while and corresponded with him by e-mail and then things turned very sour. I think several people at svWP assumed politcal things about me that made it hard for us to get along, and since I've never belonged to any politcal party or movement, trying to just be a humanitarian and an old hippie, that's so unfortunate. I condole the sorrow among his many friends, and sincerely (not sarcastically) hope that what's there about Lars Jacob in Christer Lindarw's new book didn't contribute to his unhappiness.

The Arne Klum article needs a little adjustment. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that what happened between you two before you left svwp has nothing to do to with him leaving us far to early. That was off-wiki causes, while the wiki gave him strength to stay as long as he did with us.

I will look at that article tomorrow. Best regards, Adville (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Arne Klum. I'm almost ashamed that it took two readings for me until the name Mattias Klum rang a bell for me. As a former science teacher I have seen a lot of his photos. I did a few small corrections, but can you tell me more what you think needs to be improved.

Thank you again! I'm glad then, that his intense work on WP helped him for a while.

I just now read the recent discussion about me on svWP and frankly, I feel a bit sick, as if I had "reported" A here only for adding sources, and as if she needed to ask you all several times to inform admins here that I'm blocked there because of my work on "history articles". There too, I very much appreciated your input. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, because you didn't do anything this time. That's why I told the enwp-admins we two had had a discussion, so they know that before they read. Then it was easier to understand. The Swedish royalties have been a great deal of discussions on both enwp and svwp between you and a few other users (me just a little bit in the end about that source, because it came up during KAW, else I am not writing anything about them at all). Because of this some users feel not so very well to discuss with you, but they do good edits. The question now is how to solve this interaction problem between you and the others. When that is done there might be a chance to start discussing a removal of the ban on svwp. (there were some other issues too, as you know) I have been mediator in a cause like this before on svwp between two editors. It was solved and both are still very active, but no more issues between them. As you know some people have had special agreements for a while after a block (our late friend Obelix is an example of that)... What I mean is that there could be solutions in the future to solve things to the better for all parts. Maybe a little to early right now (your photos are discussed on Tostarpadius discussion right now), but later. The main thing is not you coming back to svwp, but that you and Aciram can edit in the same articles without any of you feels afraid. That you think the same about the use of sources etc. Not you or Aciram shall feel bad about the other (like both now have done in this specific case, which made you understand how Aciram feels about you. Tht is no good feeling, and it is not fun for you to know - how can we change this, is the question). (Sorry if I interfere too much here writing like this) - Best regards, Adville (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanx, Adville, but new surprises like this aren't going to help here, and harassment like this (one of several examples today) that is still going on, does not make me feel interested at all in returning to svWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled over Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia, not a terrible article (don´t know if you ever read Lucky Luke), but one of the things that caught my eye is what seems to be an overuse of his title, if you control-f "the grand duke" you´ll see what I mean. I´m thinking of changing it to more of a first-name basis, like in Peter the Great. Is it worth doing or shouldn´t I bother? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article, I thought "this sounds like a society page in an old newspaper!" Then I saw the sources. Heh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas - go for it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted scrap on your and user Dnm:s page. I do not know how to make someone hide it. My opiion is it should be. I just wanted you to know that about Dnm too, so you do not miss that page when you tell the right person. Best regards, Adville (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Serge ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you & the same to you. Computer problems at my place for a week or so now. Best wishes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked Crompton 2009 for the sources the author uses for the rather sweeping statement "modern biographers generally consider her to have been a lesbian, and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime"? And since when is a person's sexuality the result of an opinion poll? I hasten to notice that everything else in the relevant section is innuendo or suspicion, so that it is really Crompton that it all hangs from. In any event, I have boldly moved Christina's own declaration to the top, as the standard nowadays with regard to sexuality is that it does not matter what other people think, it matters what you declare. See: Manning, Jenner. I hope this is not offtopic to you. I just don't have access to the Crompton book. Thanks, and happy new year. XavierItzm (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Very busy with other things now. Hope to start in with this again soon. Best wishes! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Serge ! May I ask , have you (also, like me) been more or less thrown out of Swedish Wiki ? And may I copy your template to my page ? By the way, Jacob Truedson Demitz, appear to have had some controversies with Swedish wiki as well. see the Gallery part of Swedish Wikipedia, there is a picture of him. And it seems like he had some kind of discussion with them, in Stockholm 2010. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template was not created by me, but someone tipped me off and I added it immediately.

The person you mentioned has complained several times about the lack of conflict resolution methods (and interest) and the absence of rules against harassment and outing on svWP. I think that's why they hate him there and have blacklisted him and several other people they know or think are involved with him. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter Nr 1 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below) Progress report: Since the Projects very first edit 9 december 2002 by User:Dan Koehl, which eventually became the WikiProject Genealogy, different templates were developed, and the portal Portal:Genealogy was founded by User:Michael A. White in 2008. Over the years a number of articles has been written, with more or less association to genealogy. And, very exciting, there is a proposal made on Meta by User:Another Believer to found a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you havnt done so already. Future: The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input. You can discuss on the projects talk page how the project should be developed sign as member or supporter at the projects member list Check the goal, tasks and see if something interest you. put the User box on your user page by inserting the Template:User WikiProject Genealogy with the following code: {{User WikiProject Genealogy}}. develop or update the Portal:Genealogy? in case you havnt read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy founder and coordinator Dan Koehl To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery Dan Koehl (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Malmö, if possible Boeing720 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter Nr 2 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) Progress report: In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogy connect (In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial) At m:Talk:Wikimedia_genealogy_project#Wikimedia_user_group is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia user group: please submit comments and suggestions, and whether you would like to be a member in such a group. Prime goal for the group is the creation of a new, free, genealogy wiki, but there is also a discussion weather we should propose a new project or support the adoption of an existing project? Read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you haven't done so already. Future: The future of the Genealogy project, and creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input. You can discuss on the projects talk page how the project should be developed sign as member or supporter at the projects member list put the User box on your user page by inserting the Template:User WikiProject Genealogy with the following code: {{User WikiProject Genealogy}}. develop or update the Portal:Genealogy? in case you haven't read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Newsletter Nr 3 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) Request: In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well as taking new, important steps towards a creation of a new project site, we need to make communication between the users easier and more effective. At Mail list on meta is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia email list. In order to request the creation of such a list, we need your voice and your vote. In order to create a new list, we need to put a request it in Phabricator, and add a link to reasoning/explanation of purpose, and link to community consensus. Therefore we need your vote for this now, so we can request the creation of the mail list. Read more about this email list at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project mail list where you can support the creation of the mail list with your vote, in case you haven't done so already. Future: in case you haven't read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Newsletter Nr 4, 2017-03-24, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the fourth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) Mail list is created: The project email list is now created and ready to use! Please feel free to subscribe at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy Future: Discuss the next step, the creation of a meta Genealogy user group, list yourself as m:interested participant and vote on which name should be used for the user group. in case you haven't read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kleuske (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Roberts. 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) 10:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Princess Kristine Bernadotte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royalty. 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) 09:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, här uppgav du att prinsessan Birgitta konverterade när hon gifte sig: [1]. Det var några år sedan men jag undrar ändå om du känner till någon källa till det?--LittleGun (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are what I can find at the moment about Birgitta's religion, plus the assumption that back then one could not be married in a Roman Catholic church without converting (today you can). I've read somewhere reliably, and more specifically that she converted, but I can't put my finger on it right now. Remove it if you can't find a specific source. Two queens of Sweden have been Roman Catholics, and when Birgitta converted she was not eligible for the throne so the matter was not important to the king or government. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if she converted I do not think she could have kept her Royal Highness "status", the ones her sisters lost when they did not marry royal. I can't believe the court, king or their fans would let converting go, but enforce the marrying royal thing. Citation needed is fine until sources are found. From newspapers at tidningar.kb.se you can see it was commented and discussed at the time and she did write her memoirs so there should be sources..--LittleGun (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Queens Desideria and Josephine remained royal Majesties in Sweden though they were Roman Catholics I think Birgitta would have been allowed to remain a Royal Highness there - throne inheritance was not involved anyway, and that's the only part where religion comes into it. The Bernadottes were all Roman Catholics before 1810. We have so few precedents because there have been so few Swedish princesses, if any before, who married Catholic princes. You are right though to expect anything, good or bad, from "the court, king or their fans". Lots of inconsistent and weird policies and practises. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her youngest sister does no longer use any royal title. Only that she is a part of the Royal Family. "Fru Magnusson". (Stated by herself in a reliable TV-program, a few years back.) Doubt if her sisters care much more about their titles nowadays. There's also the matter of Prince Sigvard or not Prince, he was punished for his marriage, thrown out of the Family by his father, Gustav VI Adolf, but insisted to keep his title. But he was a generation older than the "Hagasessorna". Boeing720 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigvard (Prince Sigvard Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg) kept both the titles of nobility (also Prince Bernadotte) which his granduncle Oscar was given in 1892 by the government of Luxembourg, and which he himself was given by the same gov't in 1951, but he didn't insist on Prince Bernadotte being used in Sweden until 1983, which the current king, shamefully, never acknowledged. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be very well enlightened about Sigvard. Although I'm not much for the royalties, and even less so, regarding the gossip about them, was this interesting reading. And as you mention it, do I totally agree that the king has treated his uncle in a very shameful manner. Unforgiving and without respect for the prince's age. Did you know that he once, during a speech to the population of Arboga, greeted the crowd with the words "Kära örebroare..." or something like "Dear people of Örebro..." ? I think it was in the early 80's.

But Karl XVI Gustav have at least once managed to get at least my sympathy. And this was when media chased him for comments about his (alledged) adultery, in the middle of the moose/elk hunt in which the king participated. His astonishing first and only comment was a brief reply to a journalist. And he simply said (approximately) "Ja detta var en tråkig händelse som vi får lägga bakom oss !" or "Yes, this was a dull/dreary event, which we now must put behind us !" In one single sentence did he both (in an indirect, but still clear manner) admit to the general allegation , but he also managed put an end to the matter, and those in the tabloids who smelled blood, got none. And the matter has never come up again. Boeing720 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to refrain from making hasty conclusions about the experience of other users, using such assessments (right or wrong) as an argument when discussing an article, and belittling other users' comments (all in contrast to what you did here). /83.227.115.112 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor background is always an issue on WP and it looks like you have a personal agenda or WP:COI because all you have argued is your personal opinions, which do not coincide with what's normal here. That is the only case where editor background always is relevant. I have only stated facts, and I will oppose any personal agenda you may have without the slightest hesitation. Your complaints here about that are not welcome, now or at any time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS How many different IP-addresses will you be using for this activity of yours? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it look like I have a personal agenda? Could you please give an example?

My experience as an editor, or lack thereof, of which you have no knowledge of whatsoever, is not relevant to the article. Neither is your self assessed knowledge about Wikipedia. To call an argument by another editor "rather flimsy" is not nice and totaly unecessary. As an experienced user you should know that this kind of behavior is a breach of the Wikipedia etiquette. I asked you kindly to refrain from that. /83.227.115.112 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rater flimsy" would not normally be considered a personal attack, but if you took it that way, I apologize. I never intentionally engage in any such thing.

Normally, if an IP use shows up only once - ever - to make big changes to an article, that could lead anyone to assume that the person using that IP has a personal agenda.

I asked you not to come here and accuse me of such things as "a breach of the Wikipedia etiquette". I am asking you again not to do that, and if you so it anyway you will easily be found guilty of harassment. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serge! I simply read wrong, Sigismund was indeed king of both Sweden and Poland during some years. I read it as if Charles IX had been the same. Boeing720 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are here, to a great extent, to help each other. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've noticed that you have added quite a few references to the above person here and there. I don't know if you have a personal connection with him or not but you seem to consider him as notable. It looks like these additions, which seeing the lack of proven notability, may be spamming. This is often a technique used by COI editors to create an artificial notability. If you believe that he is notable I would suggest writing an article about him and submitting it for review. This would be a better way of ensuring his presence on Wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am an experienced Wikipedian of more that 12 years standing and I think I know what I'm doing in illustrating certain articles with relevant images from Commons. If you do not think so, in more than one case alone where you want one of your images instead, please feel free to report me, but do not feel free, please, to bring your adminitions, accusations and warnings here. If you do not feel the image at Indian Love Call is relevant, or if you object to my mentioning the names of the 2 individuals singing the song, you should have started talking on the talk page of that article, not here. That's what's normal. Your coming here with this kind of slightly condescending message, to me, is not. I'll be reinstating it after starting talk there about it, where talk about it belongs. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I say and have done and the fact that you have been an editor for 12 years or not is irrelevant and I will revert your edits please discuss and explain why you are adding images of this person in numerous articles. Domdeparis (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the references to this person in the photos that you have added as a middle ground. They have clearly been added to promote this person as per the caption that is spam for him and his amateur cabaret group. I could have removed the photo as being unnecessary to illustrate the subject. Domdeparis (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are unfair, and what you're doing is removing clearly relavant images and information from articles while on some sort of personal campaign against any mention of a certain individual who was in an image you want to replace at Indian Love Call. Second request: I do not want your unfair accusations here. Please do not use this page again! Whatever we may need to discuss can be discussed elsewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the best place to discuss an issue by a single editor on multiple pages is on the editor's talk page or on mine if you prefer but I will not discuss it on the individual pages as the problem is exactly the same. If you prefer we can take this elsewhere if you refuse to discuss it. Domdeparis (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were discussing the individial article and image issues, as you have been recommended to do at Commons, that would be fine. What you are doing here can only be taken, by me, as a very unpleasant and discouraging type of hounding, here and at Commons, because you only come here without good faith to make personal accusations, and on the talk pages involved, you are trying to refer every discussion, which should be about article content, to this page so that this will only be about what you are accusing me of. I'm asking you now, for the third time, not to do that anymore, but to discuss the actual issues on the proper talk pages where they should be discussed. Though I don't agree with all of the closer's remarks here, he did nake it very clear to both of us that "this is a content dispute". It is not a user behavior issue. User talk pages are not for content disputes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages are a great place to discuss editor's actions. As per WP:OWNTALK that states "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively." This is not a simple content problem on a single page but a more global one concerning the way that you edit and use Wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your negative and very discouraging personal opinion of me and my work, and your accusatons, quite clear, and I do not need to discuss them with you any futher here, because I have already replied to them in several other places, and here. Your accusations are unfaur, and are wrong about me. So, for the 4th time, will you please stay away from here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have duly noted that you refuse to use your talk page to discuss your editing with me, I have also proposed to continue on my talk page which is an offer I reiterate. Domdeparis (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not refuse to talk to you or anyone else here or anywhere about anything relevant. I refuse to keep refutung your unfair presumptions and accusations over and over. What's the use of that? If you stop hounding me like a criminal (as I perceive it) and notify me that you've written someting constructive (constructive) on your talk page (no more unfair presumptions, accusations or personal attacks), I will respond. I always respond when people are constructive, if I'm not sick (whch this all has basically made me).

You started all this here on my page, about Emil Eikner, by telling me "you seem to consider him as notable". It is not our job at Wikipedia to decide whether or not anyone is "not notable" enough that his/her name should be clinically removed from the project. A person who is not notable enough for an article (I know about that) is appropriate to mention in article text if the name is relevant there. I'm constantly removing non-notable, non-relevant names, such as the gradchildren of ex-royalty and of other celebs. That's what can be discussed. Relevance! And that's what you have refused to discuss, by ignoring my comments and just continuing to be accusatory, on the talk pages of those articles.

I still feel that an image of 2 people doing a song, especially if at least one of them is notable, in principle is more relevant as the only illustration to an article about that song than any movie poster would be, as that article's only image. Readers have to check that movie's article to know if the song (song article's subject) even was in that movie. That kind of thing should be discussed on that article's talk page, to improve the article, and without overzealous reverts, but not here. It would be interesting to get an RfC on that image/content principle of relevance (not on Mr. Eikner's non-notability, poor man, hope he hasn't seen any of this!), and I may do that there when I feel better than I do right now. I still haven't dared check my watchlist here, having been busy for hours and hours at Commons with all your stuff there, but I can tell you that I'm not looing forward to it and have a stomach ache. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I can empathetically understand your initial suspicion, though you've gone too far, especially at Commons (as you now can see). The worst is your adding notability tags, without talk, to articles which have been stable for many years and (and) which are quite well referenced to document notability. I must assume you did that in a state of (?). Please remove them! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: It is a well known fact that SW has a extremly strong COI when it comes to these photo, the non notworthy Emil Eikner, Demitz and Southerly clubs. SW continuesless POV-pushing, fals sourcing and blunt COI rendered him permanently banned from Swedish Wikipedia. Look at his user talkpage over there. So you are right about the pictures and SW.Dnm (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I felt unavoidably compelled to comment here on this user, and on Swedish Wiipedia in the 4th paragraph here. It was not pleasurable to feel compelled to make those comments. It is also not pleasurable to see a user back on my talk page who I feel intentionally has hounded me for many years, and the fact that the user knows that, makes it twice so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at the top of this conversation if, as you seem to suggest, Eikner is notable (as per the Wikipedia definition of course) then it would be better to create a page for him rather than wedging photos with links to a sort of biography on commons. Domdeparis (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have never suggested or inferred that. I've added his name in 3-4 places where I honestly, sincerely and in good faith thought it was relevant to an article text, never having professed that there are enough reliable sources upon which to build an article about him. Maybe there will be some day. He's under 40. I could be dead by then. Everybody relevantly mentioned in artcle text does not need to be notable enough for h own article, as I'm sure you actually know very well. But you removed at least one reliabe source where Eikner's name was mentioned, which had motivated his being mentioned in that article text.

And we have fixed the Commons link issue, and that page there, so why bring that up again?

Your choice of words like "wedging" are a part of your continued unfair accusations, which, as I am now informing you for the fifth time, are not welcome here. Will you please stop using accusatory language like that? It's not constructive. I'm trying to cooperate as best I can, here and at Commons. Please stop that part of what you're still doing. Please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Domdeparis. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Domdeparis (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean your disparaging comments about the article subject's hotel career, I kindly suggest you read up on WP:BLP. Contentious material about any living person is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not as alleged facts, not as personal opinions, not as anything. You should know that. If this particular topic somehow has distressed you and is bringng out the worst in you, why not take a break from it? That's not intended as an accusation, but I really am trying to understand some of your behavior. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report me if you wish but there is nothing contentious about it. He was a simple front office manager in a luxury hotel as I was myself there is nothing glorious in this you or he may think otherwise but this is not insulting or a personal atteck it is my opinion. Talk pages are supposed to be a discussion between often opposing views. You cannot simply remove what you do not like to read. Also you must disclose your connection with this person as per WP:COI. If you don't I will take this to the COI noticeboard for advice. Domdeparis (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's entry and what you've read or should have read in these discussions, here, on the article's talk page, and on mine, about the actual positions, make your comments here about them unreasonable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you also need to read WP:COI, especially the top's 4th §, more carefully, before threatening me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry that's not at all clear. If you have a non paid relationship with the topic you are editing then you must Wikipedia:DISCLOSE it. It's no more complicated than that. Domdeparis (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, when you say "pass" that means that you are refusing to make a disclosure ? Domdeparis (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis. This and the sometimes stranden way of using sources about Swedish nobles (even here om enwp) was part of the reason for the permanent block there and the deletion of the article. Adville (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Domdeparis (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just clarify that if someone removes any of the photos that you or others have added that are from the Demitz collection on commons regardless of which article they are on you will not object? In my opinion the addition of any photos here constituts a conflict of interest because the tags refering to Demitz and his cabaret. It is going to take a very long time to clean up this mess and it would be a shame to take 1 step forward and 2 back. You have been promoting Demitz by adding these often superfluous photos for nearly 10 years now. The cleaning up job ahead is gargantuan and I for one do not want to waste time arguing about their removal each time. Domdeparis (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If valuable (to WP) photos have only been taken and/or donated to Commons by him or any of the people he employs and that's the only connection (examples: 3rd photo here and top here), then I think other users than you, neutral ones, should decide those cases since you now obviuosly are heavily biased. Otherwise you'll be discouraging everyone, generally, from contributing the good material they might have and be willing to free up. If any image I'm connected with can be reasonably considered promotional to him or his organization, I will not touch them.

Before I left Swedish Wikipedia last year I made these lists in good faith, to help them decide whether or not I actually had done any substantial harm there. Almost none of all that on those lists has been reverted or addressed at all, meaning that I didn't do any great harm there.

You are continuing to hound me, for no constructive reason, and continuing to make totally unsubstantiated and extremyly serious personal accusations like this which are intended to cause everybody's worry of great harm to Wikipedia, by me, which can not (not) be shown ever to have taken place. Such accustions of yours are grossly exaggerated and I think they constite personal attacks. The time may have come too look at that. I am asking you for the last (ninth!) time to stay off my talk page and stop hounding me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hounding intended but because your promise to stay off COI articles was vague I wanted to be very clear what it meant. The discussion was closed there so the best way to get an answer from you is on your talk page. I have duly noted that you will not touch any photos that can be reasonably considered promotional to him. I prefer to inform you that all the photos that contain text linking to him and his interests are in my opinion promotional. Thanks for clarifying that and I really hope that I will have no call to come back here again but as I have explained user talk pages are not your personal property and it is legitimate to use them to communicate with users about their editing. You can check the link I gave you about their primary function. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, you now have my e-mail address (and the refs you asked for) so you can admonish and lecture and order me around there there if you wish, but then again that won't have this grandstanding effect.

You need(ed) to learn how Commons works before you go off half-cocked here (and went off there) about things like this. And then read WP:HOUND as directly pertains to the frequency of your appearances here with unsubtantiated accusations and uncalled-for drama. And then read WP:PA as pertains to those false accusations. And then (for the 10th time): stay off my talk page! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop throwing shit on me, like here. Last time it was about sources you know I had right about the poor quality as Other "neutral users" (your words) also said. The one with a bias was proven to be you with your COI. Adville (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a heavily biased editor when it comes to me and basically all my Wikipedia work. That has been my opinion for a long time. How would your coming here to swear at me change that or help anyone? Why not take a break and let some neutral editors try to wade through all the negative and damaging and biased input from all you angry & ganged up Swedes who (as I see it) are only here with ulterior motives to try to get me blocked and to get one article, which you abhor, deleted? The inordinately massive input from you all (who relatively speaking very rarely are on English Wikiidia ever) is telling in that regard. In any case, you're not welcome here with this kind of thing, whether or not you cuss like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual tactics. Try to misscredit everyone ego finds out you are going wrong. The edits you do in articles talks för themself. And no. If you do wrong I write here. Adville (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful to anyone and not to Wikipedia. And stuff like "Try to misscredit everyone ego finds out you are going wrong" isn't even Swenglish and thus makes no sense to me in any language. Don't really care. Go away! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was autocorrect. I ment "everyone who finds out you are doing wrong "... And saying "go away" does not mean anything. Behave instead and concentrate on the subjects. Stop trying to miscredit the user. Adville (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never miscredit anyone unless I've found out first that they are in the habit of quite severely miscrediting others. And I always try my very best to be truthful in every case, which actually is more informative than miscrediting. Now, stop hounding me! You've been doing it for years now, and I'm tired of it, aside from the fact that it has never done anyone or any project any good at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain för me how I have been hounding you for years. Everyone who can read can see on this page that I am not hounding you but discussion subjects were we disagree... Just like domdeparis did. Hounding is your way to try to escape from discussions you know you are wrong in, like when I was "hounding you about the bad sources" were the "neutral second opinion users you Called for said I and Enzo dnm were correct. To be correct in a discussion with you is in your writing to "hound you (with that login I am correct now too and you are hiding something...) everyone who reads your discussion will also read that I was medling between you and another user here on enwp where I sided with you and also asked if you wanted me to Medle so you could come back to svwp. You said no. This shows I am trying to do the best for Wikipedia and also make everyone enjoy it here (if the are not COI writing or using bad sources by purpose). Adville (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:HOUND and try to understand policy on English Wikipedia, which greatly differs from what you are used to when it comes to behavior toward other users. No further comment (I dearly hope). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jag skriver på svenska här nu för att inte alla ska fatta vad vi diskuterar. Jag använder generellt inte mail i kontakt med andra användare här då jag har hört historier om användare som bokstavligt talat tar reda på andras identiteter :) Anyway, jag har förklarat för Sitush min ståndpunkt. Och jag kan absolut skriva längre förklaringar om varför jag röstar på ena eller andra sättet. Ha det fint.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I prefer English (and full transparency) at enWP. I understand, but you have my absolute guarantee on my honor that I will not do that if you e-mail me. I'm not the slightest bit interested in your true identity, only in your talented work here. You can create a new e-mail account in a few minutes for anonymous correspondence, using a fictitious personal name like Inge Naning or Ann O'Nyma.. It's much easier to trace a computer IP here at WP than through gmail. You can also write to me through the e-mail address published at Swenglistic Underground on Facebook here which I'll be checking before bedtime. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh flattering doesn`t .. oh who am I kidding.. it always work for me. :) I will contact you. I see at Swedish Wiki that you might have had a hard time yourself in the past, unfairly so. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ: you have a FB message in your "other inbox". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been busy this week but will take a look at the mentioned article soon. :) --BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AlexCab is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlexCab until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hans E. Wallman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

this BIO has no sources that support the article. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Domdeparis (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save this re: group bias. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User put this yesterday on h own talk page (my reply there follows h "Request for clarification"):

@Drmies: I am pinging you here so as not to to pollute your talk page. I would like to clear up a couple of things you said that you have no problem with SW's editing but on the COIN you wrote "I don't understand why someone would fill a wall of text and then say "oh yeah I share a computer with this guy"--I mean seriously, no one like that should be writing on that person." You were talking about SW I believe. At the very top of the WP:COI page it says "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.[6] In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead."

For days SW refused to admit his COI and only did it after a private exchange by mail with someone here if I remember rightly. I took your comment from the COIN page as an administrator to mean that his editing is a problem when it deals with Demitz. I am seriously confused why now you are stating that you do not have any problem with his editing. I'll be honest I took this as an implicit validation to clean up his editing. --Domdeparis (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's good manners to notify somebody you're complaining about, not just the person you're complaining to.

Your quotes from WP:COI are tendentiously selective. We also have "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest."

I've made mistakes, but every single one of my edits has been a good faith edit, especially after the encouraging outcome in the ignored link below, since when I've admitted I took a bit of license in a small amount of cases. I did not ever "seek to influence an affected article's content" in any inappropriate way. I supplied images, sometimes rare ones where one could appreciate their being free and available to us at all, and text which I sincerely felt was relevant and sufficiently sourced, notwithstanding COI and well aware of hundreds if not thousands of COI-produced articles like Mattias Klum.

All that work was intended to benefit English Wikipedia.

Perhaps the administrator has come to that rational conclusion, as several other users have, both over time and more recently.

Perhaps they've seen how many of your suspicious deletion nominations (some highly notable people in there!), here and at Commons, have pooped out.

All you've made me do is feel like leaving Wikimedia projects for good. You've taken everything fulfilling and enjoyable out of any work to be done here. What's the use, I say, when unfair accusations are hurled at one day after day after day?

You've also made a normally cheerful old gentleman feel compelled to write at length in his own name to defend himself. That's the most embarrassing thing you did, besides replying to him that he wanted his own article for the sake of his ego, adding (!) an intimation that he needed a warning about "autobiographical editing". And now you're casting doubt there too, inferring that someone else wrote that. I know for a fact that he sent copies of his passport and driver license to the foundation, because he send a copy of that message to me and to Bishonen. He scanned them where I work

But most importantly, as to your quandry here:

Perhaps the administrator didn't ignore what you've ignored over and over and over (though you had it on day 1) while you go on and on polluting one talk page after another with incorrect claims like "For days SW refused to admit his COI and only did it after a private exchange by mail"?

If that's how the administrator lived up to her adminstrative duty, it would make as much sense to me as it would have made for you not to (1) ignore that link and thus (2) keep repeating the falsehood. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though I've been welcomed several times to discuss maters concerning me on that user's talk page, this one didn't make it. It was all removed with this edit summary: "Please do not edit on my talk page guys I'm only interested in the opinion of the person I pinged" --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jimmie Kersmo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmie Kersmo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing720 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter Nr 5, 2017-12-30, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the fifth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) A demo wiki is up and running! Dear members of WikiProject Genealogy, this will be the last newsletter for 2017, but maybe the most important one! You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records. And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2018! Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

This was on an administrator's talk page until 2018-01-15, and it may make some people feel a bit better to read it now and then:

Hello Bishonen ! Long time no see. I don't really understand what has happened with Demitz. Are you about to recreate the article once more ? Perhaps some people cannot differ between Serge and Demitz. 6-7 "voters" had less than 250 edits here. Unfair, doubtlessly. Now swWiki has opened up for further deletions here. The principles were not considered, in my opinion. Thanks for your efforts, and I hope some article can be restored. Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boeing720. Recreate it? No, I can't do that. Were you reading the deletion log at the redlink Jacob Truedson Demitz? There, you can see me both delete and restore the article on October 16. But all the actions I did there, including the recreation, were purely technical, for the purpose of moving SergeWoodzing's draft over the original article and then merging the histories of the two pages. The only "real" action was by BD2412, who closed the discussion on 23 October and found "substantial consensus" that the article subject didn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and then deleted it. He's right, you know. There was substantial consensus. Speaking personally, I'm pissed off at the amount of notability we demand for people like this, when I compare the kinds of sources we treat as reliable for some types of BLPs, such as say porn stars. I clicked on one BLP at random in the porn stars category, and found that Xbiz, Fangoria, AskMen, the Howard Stern Show, Badmouth interviews, Klixxx.com and Glamourcon are apparently OK sources with a reputation for fact-checking. But Borlänge Tidning and Dala-Demokraten are dubious, "local", etc. That's simply anglocentric. Or maybe porn-aficionado-centric.. grumble. But you know how it goes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS yada yada. There was consensus. And most of the deleters' arguments were, properly, about notability, certainly when they re-posted in the second round. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Well I think this is a very sad story. Initiated by someone at s. Huge thanks for your efforts anyways. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and posted today. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A useful thing where there is "no indication of importance". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John, King of Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libris (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) 09:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images of ours well replaced in English Wikipedia articles with images from other sources: Bishop Bonnier, Alice Bah Kuhnke, Michael Nyqvist, Helena Mattsson, Svenne Hedlund, Gustaf Skarsgård, Mattias Klum, Loa Falkman, Örjan Ramberg, Alexandra Charles, Efva Attling, Thomas Dellert, Ewa Fröling, Frederick Adolph of Sweden, Adolph John of Sweden, Magnus IV of Sweden, Carl Bernadotte, Edvin Adolphson, Margaretha of Denmark, Per Åhlin, Chairman, Eddie Gustafsson, Gustavus Adolphs's grave all replaced by others in articles where we had provided the very first photos but were glad when they were improved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a stub about him at SVWiki as well. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a courtesy I wanted to let you know that I mentioned your Keep comment at a discussion over at Bishonens talk page. My rationales for Keep was in question. The main discussion was concerning another editors canvassing though. [2].--BabbaQ (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to read the article about Kenneth Gärdestad that I have created. He sadly died today.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work - thank you! Sad to see him gone. I did just a bit of touch-up & added an image I cropped from Commons. Today is Christer Lindarw's 65th birthday - shall we give him a pensionsklapp by bringing his Swedish and English articlee's up-to-date? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely I shall take a look at Lindarws article tomorrow. Absolutely. I am planning a complete re-write of Benjamin Ingrossos article as well. Sad to hear about the death of Kjerstin Dellert, very talented. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, IP 104.163.148.25 continues to throw tantrums over at Bishonens talk page. Everyone else dropped the stick two days ago and the IP joins the discussion to say how terribly angry the person is for others not dropping the stick. Oh the irony :). I have not even thought of the matter for 48 hours.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to hear about the death of Kjerstin Dellert. BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a clean-up of Christer Lindarws article, also expanded it some. I also did a complete re-write of Benjamin Ingrossos article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!. Great work on Lindarw. More comments to come after dinner. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Ingrosso too.

Ivan Öfverholm died yesterday, I've uploaded the only passable facial photo we have of him in the family archives here. Perhaps you'd like to add it to the article there? Confirmation of his death should be in Swedish papers within the next few days, or maybe as soon as tomorrow at Ingenjörer utan gränser.

Now that you did such a good job here on Lindarw, perhaps you'd also like to fix his Swedish article? The lack of sourced info about his very appreciated book and fantastic last show tour is embarrassing. And his retirement from those shows. Best wishes! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually played Rolf Gruber in a high school production of The Sound of Music over 40 years ago, and I never put together the lyrics to the song with the user name I chose - although I guess I may have picked it making a subconscious connection. Thanks for pointing it out, although I'm dreadfully sorry that the song gets stuck in your head when you see my name: believe me, I know how annoying that can be, and it's not exactly one of Rodgers and Hammerstein's greatest works. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catchy tune, in my opinion, though the sliding around on "IiiIIii'll take caaAAaare of you" is annoying. Thanx for this interesting message and every good wish. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I wanted to thank you for all the work you've been doing improving articles and joining AfD discussions. I believe there are not enough eyes looking at these articles, and often notable people and topics are getting deleted just because there are not enough people like you willing to research and defend them. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Netta that I created is appearing in the ITN section today. As Israel won ESC.BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SergeWoodzing. In your recent edit of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, you used Rollback. Wikipedia:Rollback requires that Rollback may only be used in specific situations, and you might not have been aware that using Rollback to revert good-faith edits is generally not permissible. --Bsherr (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, you are right of course, and I apologize to you and to イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話）. I rolled back a minor edit (1 single character, a parentheses) only so I could revert your overly hasty edit. Since your edit to the article, while the discussion was ongoing and had not reached consensus, was not what 3O editors (or any editors) normally do, shall we say we're even? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from your explanation whether you understand the problem, because you seem focused on why you reverted the edits. There are several ways to revert edits. But, per Wikipedia:Rollback you cannot use the Rollback tool to revert good-faith edits, not even minor ones. You agree, yes? --Bsherr (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reason to doubt that my apology was sincere or to assume that I'd apologize without agreeing. You do have a reason to apologize yourself for making changes to an article while something was being discussed, especially since you did that as a 3rd opinion ( = neutral) helper. If you mainly want to argue, go away! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we talked about it. PLEASE STOP REVERTING other contributor’s edits just because you consider them useless trivia. I restored stuff at Gina Lollobrigida and Ingmar Bergman. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if the footnote solution was fine, why do you keep editing as if no discussion ever existed? イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 18:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SHOUTING is not welcome here, not ever. You know how to do footnotes well, I don't. When I tried to do one, you fixed it. I was grateful. You could have put the translation thingies för Lollobrigida & Bergman in footnotes much easier & faster than coming here to shout demands at me. I am tired of your belligerent attitude. Please stop it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know now how to make proper footnotes. Can we please have peace? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am sorry if I’m just tired of your attitude: you could have asked, but you just deleted it altogether (probably hoping I didn’t notice) because it was easier and you liked it more, didn’t you? All you have to do is enclosing things in a {{efn}} template and adding a {{notelist}} at the bottom of the page. Quite simple, isn’t it? イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 20:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was replying while you added other stuff. Please just stop, anyway. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 21:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop what? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting what you shouldn’t, of course. Hoping you won’t now that you know how to add footnotes. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 21:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone has been unneccessaily belligerent throughout this disagreement. My attitude has been limited to article content. I have not talked down to you with sarcasm and mastery. If you feel I have, I apologize sincerely. You? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, out of frustration (from what I felt was over-stubbornness on your side) but yes, I did; I am normally not this harsh at discussions. However, put aside the reasons I reacted badly to your recent edits, I apologize too and sincerely hope I will not end up discussing with you again. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 21:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Assume good faith is one of our best rules and can keep most of us out of trouble. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently, in my opinion, questioned my behavior by this edit.

The correct place to do this is on my user talk page, not on an article talk page. Please either do that or desist.

I am very sorry that this seems to be escalating, but I feel that you are giving me no choice. Andrewa (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to question your behavior? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are. But an article talk page is not the place to do it. See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As a rather experienced Wikipedian, I am aware, but I honestly felt user behavior, as pertaining to that discussion, had entered into it before I alluded to yours. Another misunderstanding? Sorry, if so. I'm actually known for trying my best to avoid any and all mentions of other users on article talk pages. We are there to address & discuss article content, I firmly believe, not each other. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you persist in discussing my behaviour on the article talk page. As I replied there, I am happy to wait until the RM closes, in order to remove what you see as the need to discuss this further there. And then we can discuss any behavioural issues (yours or mine) that still need clarification, in an appropriate place.

But what I am most interested in is your program to eradicate what you see as Swenglish from Wikipedia. This may be a simple mistake (yours or mine) in interpreting Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or a similar misunderstanding. See #Swenglish below. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, I am concerned that you claim to have corrected hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors [3] similar to your proposed change to an article name. The RM appears to be controversial at least, yet in the same post you claim that your proposed title is irrefutably correct.

Comments on your continued concern: That RM was initially based on what I perceived to be Swenglish from an original dictionary (word for word) translation of Nobelpriset i litteratur to [The] Nobel Prize in Literature, where I felt that for Literature was correct English, whereas I felt that in Literature was very likely based on a mistranslation. Since (the moment when) I asked for that RM, several other editors have enlightened me there about the frequency of use of in, and I am always willing to bow to a clear consensus. My assertion that in is likely to have originated in a mistranslation (probably by the Swedish Academy itself), and then spread to all those other sources, remains my opinion, to which I believe you have conceded that I have a right. From what you’ve written so far on that talk page, I’m not sure if you and I ever would be able to agree that there even is such a thing at all as incorrect English (?). If we could, then I’d have to take the liberty of claiming the right to the personal opinion that prize in Literature basically is incorrect English, regardless (outside of WP) of WP consensus. However that is not irrefutable, as we’ve seen on the article’s talk page, and consensus is all that counts there. My claim that for Literature is "irrefutably" correct only means (as I alluded to in the now closed RM discussion) that the irrefutably correct version cannot reasonably be questioned but the other can, also my opinion, which ergo I claim the right to have. This, according to what the word means, is not to say that an irrefutably correct version is the only viable version, especially for a project where we’ve consensed on things like a queen named Hedwig whose name actually was Helvig or Haelwig and never bore the name Hedwig in the real world. I do not know the Israeli editor who agreed, when supporting the RM we’re still discussing here, and opined that they should all be moved. I do not know any of those users who agreed with me, nor do I disrespect the one who changed h mind.

I can also safely promise you that my Swenglish edits (where even people corrected do not object, and many have thanked me), as well as that RM, primarily are about examples like this: This was under this time what this here the theatrehouse, to exempel, should be used to. ( = Swenglish); At the time, that was what that theater building was to be used for. = irrefutably correct American English; At the time, that was what that theatre building was to be used for. ( = spelling of one word which once was, but no longer is, irrefutably correct only in British English); The use of the building which housed the theater at the time was intended thus. ( = improved English, possible only when time and a bit of thought allows).

So I must ask, are any of these other corrections to hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors soundly based? I am not wishing to discourage your participation here. But I think there are grounds for fearing that some of it may be misguided, and I want to clear that up.

Reply to your first question: Yes. I try very hard not to do any WP editing that is not soundly based. Same applies to many years of professional work, but without disclosing who I am, I cannot refer you to doctoral dissertations & other academic & professional work where I am thanked by name. Shall we correspond by e-mail? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of other edits in which you have corrected Swenglish? Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your second question: OK, it looks like I'm on trial now, but I really don't feel qualified to choose examples for you myself. My user contrib page shows that I almost always make rather comprehensive edit summaries, and you'll find Swenglish mentioned in them now and then. Feel free to browse there for examples! But in order to be able to evaluate that particular work, you'd need to know Swedish, or else be assisted by a fair admin at enWP who does, such as User:Bishonen. You might also ask her whether or not she sees a substantial amount of Swenglish that would be hard for readers of English, who don't know Swedish, to understand. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those replies. Some of them relate to behavioural issues, and I'll address those in #Behavioural issues above.

The question for this section is whether Swenglish is acceptable at all in English Wikipedia, and if so under what circumstances. We seem to have had some disagreements on this. They are in two main areas: Linguistics, and Wikipedia policy.

You are not on trial. But there are questions to discuss, and I hope that you will not object to some use of the Socratic method in this discussion. It is not supposed to be an Inquisition.

In proposing the recent RM that sparked this, you said The "in" is Swenglish, i.e. a dictionary translation without better knowledge of normal English. (Swedish Academy's English and that of the Nobel Foundation, leave much to be desired.) Wikipedia should not endorse a translation error. [4]

Later you claimed Nobel Prize for Literature is (1) sufficiently known and (2) irrefutably correct and (3) does not set a bad example and sabotage the hard work of English teachers. [5] There is much in that post with which I disagree, but I'd like to focus on that part of it for the moment.

That RM has now closed as not moved. I think it's a good close, but obviously it favours my viewpoints. So, can we accept this as a consensus decision, or would you like to discuss that further? Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you've missed where I wrote, quite clearly, about always bowing to consensus, please reread! And then please stop pursuing this unneccessary and repetitive argument you don't seem to want to let go of. I want to end it. Now. Feels more like provocation than anything else. Respectfully (respect is suppososed to be mutual) yours, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will respect your wish not to discuss any of these matters further here. Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If you find errors of mine, which I do make like we all do, please deal with them as per standard procedure. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why? if this law is from 1980 - and in Denmark in 1953 how can it be first in Europe? Deror (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on the article's talk page, not here. I will respond there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...did not develp in Italy. It is very clearly explained in the article that the genre is partly based on commedia dell'arte, which developed in Italy. In fact, modern pantomime has almost no connection with the Italian genre, since modern pantomimes no longer even include the Harlequinade. Furthermore, you have never, as far as I know, contributed a WP:Reliable source to the article that gives helpful historical context. I have been reading every single contribution that anyone has made to this article since at least 2007, and I have also been reading about the genre of pantomime since then in books about Victorian theatre, on the internet and elsewhere. I am confident that the genre is *entirely* British (I am American, BTW), and all "pantomime" performances in every other country (other than those based on the French mime genre) are simply locally-adapted (if at all adapted) copies of British pantomime. No one has *ever* added anything to the article based on a WP:RS, let alone from a credible historian, that shows otherwise. So, I totally disagree with you, and feel confident that you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, anyone who claims otherwise is making a mess, and you should do some research in actual reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean British pantomime which is what that article should be named. For that claim I need research no further than one book among the 800+ (many on theatrical history) here in my bookcases: Webster's New Dictionary Second College Edition, which lists pantomime, as you mean it, as connotation #4. Between us Americans, then, I respectfully suggest you adopt a more neutral (less pro-British) approach in this case, and - emphatically! - that you refrain from coming here to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. We need very experienced and valuable theater editors like you to be fair, not to mention polite. You have the right to your opinions, which I respect. So do I. Do you? Your comment in that edit summary was out of line in that it showed no good faith whatsoever, no common courtesy and minimal comprehension of the subject of the article as incorrectly named. Don't come back here with anything that smacks of insults, and stop writing edit summaries that do! If you're in a bad mood, take a break! There is a life outside Wikipedia, some of it much more scholarly and knowledgeable than consensus here often will allow. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other pantomime than British pantomime (except for the French genre of Marcel Marceau-style mime). This is the same reason why we don't have to call musical theatre "American musical theatre", even though the modern musical was basically developed in America based on various European and American pre-cursors. The tone of the pantomime article is not "pro-British", it is neutral and factual. When one demonstrates that one doesn't have a sufficient background in a subject to talk about it with authority, to say that they don't know what they are talking about is not a value judgement, just an observation. I don't know what I am taking about when I contribute to certain science articles, but that doesn't mean that I can't contribute to them, as long as I have reliable sources. If, however, someone is contributing to the article who does know what they are talking about, I am grateful! I try to make sure that I don't make a mess, and I try to help them rather than making it more difficult for them to keep the article up to date and keep improving it. However, I will try to be polite and sensitive in the future, and I realize that everyone has feelings. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous opinions & suggestions, and since you choose to ignore Webster's and many other sources, this discussion about an article that obviously (to me and hoards of others) should be namned British pantomine is going nowhere. I know what I'm talking about in this case. Your snide, disrespctful comments about that are not welcome here. Get it? What American schoolkids learn about what English words mean, as per dictionary, is important to me. If that's not important to you, that's your prerogative. Your comments are often less than courteous. Have a fair look at them! Work on it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I'll try to be polite, and I do not intend to be snide or disrespectful. A dictionary, however, is not a history book by respected historians of a genre. Using an American dictionary to name a Wikipedia article is exactly what you have accused me of: failing to have a global perspective. A global perspective means that when something is properly to be attributed to a region then that region's terminology controls. In this case, the correct terminology is simply "pantomime", and everywhere except America, that terminology would be clearly understood. For Americans, I have tried to make the article clear. When I first came across pantomime, about 25 years ago (because of frequent travel to a musical theatre festival there), I had never heard of any such thing, except for the French genre. But if you said to an Australian or a German or even a Belgian, what is "pantomime", they would describe the British genre to you without a qualifier. How do I know this? Because I have done so. It is literally only in America that we did not know of the genre, although that may be changing. I hope I have now made myself clearer, and I am sorry to have offended you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Thank you!

On Facebook tonight, I'll ask my German, Belgian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Haitian, Cuban and Mexican friends (note the absence of subjects of the Empire or Commonwealth, or whatever they call it nowadays!). If even one agrees with you, I'll really be surprised. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Prepare to be surprised (especially if you ask the question neutrally, like "have you ever seen a 'pantomime', and how would you describe it?")! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll ask them in German, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian & Swedish, of course, using the equivalent word in their own languages (see the links). I'll also ask them if they know what "British pantomime" is. Sorry to say most don't (I've asked that before). There nothing or hardly anything about it in any of those articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]