User talk:Dan Koehl/2004

Dog breeds Wikiproject
Hi Dan. Welcome to the dog breeds Wikiproject, it's great to have you join us. If you need any help just give one of us a shout. Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Genealogy
Hi Dan, and thanks for reminding me of the project; I had completely lost touch with it. I still think it's a good idea. I've been spending most of my time lately on Wiktionary and Wikisourc. (There's too much arguing on Wikipedia:-)) Why is the ancestor page a separate page on sv:?  There should be no problem if you just go ahead and copy the chard yourself. Eclecticology 10:28, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Talk:Viking
Dan, I am sorry, but you are the one misbehaving on Talk:Viking, not Wiglaf. dab 09:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * yes, the article still contains inaccuracies. It is unfinished. You could help with those instead of shouting at us.
 * 1) In English, since ca. the second half of the 20th century, there has been an adjective "Viking" alongside the noun "the Vikings". You show no appreciation of the difference in your postings. Yes, the adjective has arisen from misunderstandings, but it is a part of the English language now. It is not our job to teach you this. Google around and find out for yourself.
 * 2) The article does not contain bullshit (apart from some exaggerated phrasings that may still be toned down). It is your failure to understand the (English) terminology that makes it seem so to you. Yes, probably the English article may not be translated into swedish 1:1, due to these terminological differences. You are welcome to add a note to this effect to the etymology section.
 * 3) The history of terms referring to other Germanic peoples in the English language is very involved. Even in the 19th century, there was disagreement whether to classify the English language as "Nordic"/"Scandinavian" or "Dutch"/"Teutonic"/"German", with all these terms being in constant flux, too. For this reason, it may be confusing to translate any of these terms from English into another language (and sometimes there is even confusion between British and American English etc). Yes, it is complicated. No, you do not help by just blaming us for the facts.
 * 4) I gave a source for the map. Look at the image page. it is a map of "Viking(adjective!) voyages and territories", a historical political map, not a zoological map of the habitat of a species, come on. It is also unfinished. Dates should be added for some territories (Normandy, Vinland).

Look, now you have scared off Wiglaf, who is a good editor, and would do the article certainly more good than you will. What have you done with the "technology" section?? If you move it, move it to Viking Age, where there is already a "Technology" stub, into which it can be merged. And leave a link from where you removed it, e.g. See Viking Age. If you continue to just remove stuff, I will just revert you. dab 10:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have not scared away anyone, I have asked Wiglaf for written sources when he claims I am wrong. I dont consider vikipedia some elithic thing, it is open for anyone. If there isan argue about facts in an article, them they have be validated by sources. I suppose I have a less worth for you or the wiki, what would you have said, if wiglaf with his comments has scared me away? At least I seem to be able to find sources for my arguments, so my ideas about what I am, and descendant to who, which you have argued, may be as important for this vikipedias as Wiglaf, this is what I belive.


 * The most important thing on the vikipedia is to share information, not build small castles and not allowing other people to change them. Articles should reflect accurate information, from a neutral point of view. Drwaing maps, filling it with green color saying "viking territory" is violating the history of sweden, please respect this.


 * Please Dab, try to see that I am trying to form a structure in this. You may be right that technology should into viking age and not scandinavia, but I belive you are wrong. How do you count viking age in england? We start at year 800, and it goes to 1066. Are you sure we only made longships from when the viking age begins, our fleet was wellknown before that. Why should this tecnology not be discribed under scadinavia, since it was a scandinavian tecnology, know before year 800? I do not argue with you, and it should be clear to anyone that I am trying my best here to put relevant pieces of information on its right place. before I changed, scandinavians were people without tecnology, while vikings were stated as the developers of boats they didnt. I suppose you belive I want to harm the vikipedia, belive me, this is no the case.


 * Dab, my opinions have been reverted for two days now. I have backed up my opinions with written sources, you with nothing so far. It will be very clear for anyone whats going on here, if you would start some sort of edit war. I kindly ask you to help me instead, to get the fragmented information on its right place, so all articles can be developed.Dan Koehl

You have done nothing of the kind. You have repeated the same statements over and over, and we have all agreed to what you said, and tried to show you why it was beside the point. It seems pointless to talk to you, and this is my last attempt. Your edits completely mess up carefully balanced articles. Of course the longboat is a part of the history of Scandinavia. But it insane to insert a section about medieval naval technology right at the beginning of the Scandinavia article, before even the definition of the term Scandinavia. Also, the intro to Viking has been fought over hard and patiently, precisely to account for the complicated overlaps of the English (of course, English! this is ) word. Have you read the discussions? Yet you think you can just replace it with your ad-hoc defense of the medieval Scandinavian use. Could you just leave the article alone now, please?

I have inserted in the etymology section. Surely it is enough to state that fact once?? What more do you want?? dab 11:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In medieval use (e. g. Widsith, and Adam von Bremen, a viking is a pirate, and not a name for the people in general.

I repeat its not your article, so your request is irrelevant, since I belive, you do want me to contribute in a constructive way, and not only discuss? The kilomters of discussions connected to this article are in themself, a very good indication that this article IS NOT CORRECT!

Unless you see yourself as someone who is entitled to define what is important or not, and can give valid source for this statement, I do not accept to be refered to someone beside the point. I have given you clear sources, and links backing up my arguments, and I really cant see the point of making a war about this as if the page is some sort of personal toy. This article, as the rest of the vikipedia should represent a neutral point of view. I see beyond any doubt, that a historical point of view should have a chance to be represented, together with the article about the misunderstandings of the word?

There will be discussions and discussions all over again, if the article does not reach NPOV.

viking is not an english word, no, its a loan word. You may change its meaning, but then it shall be very clearly explained, before you make all scandinavian people descendants of pirats. It is clearly, othervise, that a normal average reader will belive that was written there was true. For the same reason, you can not hide that terrible misunderstanding in the english language further down the page, hidden in some sentences. Such a grave mistake must be clearified already in the beginning, so a normal person with a normal brain can assimilate objective historical information.

Dan Koehl 12:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dab, I can now see you are going into an edit war, this under my belt. As an example you put back the sentence about northmen, from wehere you in the beginning suggested that I should put it. There is no source that a viking called themself northmen. You are trying delibarately to change history of another country, for what reason I can not undertand. Theres not possible for me to try to clean up in he articles if you make edit wars with me instead of trying to agree on common terms.

You doesnt allow me to move sections describing scandinavian naval architecture to scandinavia, because you claim it should be undeder viking age, although longbotas were built before that period, and the art of boat making in sweden was already recorded by tacitus and jordanes. (far, far, older that the viking age). I can not really see the prime reason why you are behaving like this.

The only conclusion is that you think this is your article, and that you doesnt allow anyone else to improve it. When you make her home made maps of "viking territories", and such things that never existed you are violating the swedish history. I ac not see how I can stop you from this, I can only make very clear that I find this way of working on the wikipedia very unfair. calling sweden a viking territory gives also a very clear indication of your limited insight in this countrys history, which makes me ask why you write those articles at all? Dan Koehl 12:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFM
Dan, it is very bad style to list me on RFM (a) without listing the issue on RFC first, and (b) without telling me you are about to. You have really managed to disregard any standard of Wikiquette, politeness, common sense, or intelligence today. I am sorry, because the core issue is really simple, without even a factual dispute. I am, thus, sadly unavailable for further direct correspondence with you. dab 16:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am not fully aware of what RFC is, I was luckily not involved in any of this kind before. I dint know how to handle the situation when you began edit war, it left me very confused. My personal reflection is that its a good idea to start a project vikng, trying to establish common guidelines. Dan Koehl 16:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ok
ok, Dan. I appreciate that you are sincere, and I am trying not to sulk unnecessarily. However, I do not think that any cooperation with you is possible, as long as you do not try to understand what people say. I.e. it seems you just see red as soon as you read the word "viking", without even considering when we try to assure you that in some uses, as in "Viking Age", viking is not equivalent to "pirate". Yes it is a loanword in English, like about half the words in the language. Its present meaning has evolved in the 20th century. Because of this, I can show you written sources of the 20th century that use "viking" in this way, but no medieval sources. I am sorry. The meaning has shifted. Nobody has ever disputed it means "pirate" in Old Norse, but we need to account for the present use of the word.

Please try to see how your behaviour comes accross. The intro of Viking was a compromise. We had a long discussion about it, and it was very carefully worded. In this discussion, I had taken your position, i.e. I tried to have "vikings" refer to pirates *only*, but I was convinved that this is not possible in English, and the article was aiming at making clear the ambiguity of the term. Then you came here and simly replaced the entire intro just because you didn't like it. WP doesn't work this way. I reverted your edit, not to "my" version, but to the *compromise* version several people had agreed upon. Your listing on RFM is just another example how you act before you are properly informed. If you had even read WP:RFM (including What is mediation?), you would have known it was inappropriate. If you had read Dispute resolution, you would know what RFC is, and you would know how to proceed. Similarly, I have the impression that you do not read, or do not understand the replies people give you. This is either a language problem, i.e. you have difficulties understanding what you read, or because you think you know better already, and don't take the time to understand. Either way, unless you are prepared (a) to read carefully what the topic is about and (b) are prepared to build a consensus (this will take several days, in any case, because some editors are not on WP daily), I do not think we can work together.

This has all nothing to do with the history of Sweden. I do not think that Swedes are better or worse than any other people on Earth. I have no special knowledge about Sweden today, but I do know some things about the time we call the "Viking Age", because I have studied literature about it.

re:crank: your behaviour comes across as cranky, because you do not listen, and because you have this intense interest for one single topic, the removal of the word "viking" wherever you find it. I have no wish to insult you, and I do not presume to know anything about your person. All I can comment on is your behaviour on WP, and I do hope that you are willing to work on that. dab 13:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC

Not very Ok, Id say

 * dab, I started with best wishes to remove nothing in its pure meaning, but move what you call intro, which describes nortmen to scandinavian which is the proper place. (before I asked for a source when a viking described himseld as northman, and there was no source for this).

Before I had worked even five minutes you started an editwar, and started with:

Reverting threats
 * If you continue to just remove stuff, I will just revert you. dab ([source])

Insulted


 * Excuse me, but if you are not prepare to listen, maybe you would better shut up, too.  dab'' ([2)


 * accused of being a troll: I hope this will stop Dan from trolling this page now. A short summary needs to be re-introduced in the "The Viking Age" section. dab (UTC)''(3)


 * As well as "crank". Whatever it means.

Ordered not to edit: 
 * ''Could you just leave the article alone now, please? dab (UTC) ([sorce])

What you mean with "listen" and "understand what people say", is that to follow your decisions? Wikipedia would never be NPOV with that type of philosophy. And I would never call it cooperation. It would have been better to wait and evaluate what I would have built up. After that we could have discussed various details. You interrupted that with above mentioned activities.

You know perfectly well I cant work at all now, if I also commit edit war, I might be accused to do the same errors as you do. All I can do presently, until more members (hopefully people with respect for history and sorces) are present in the WikiProject Scandinavia, WikiProject Sweden and WikiProject Vikings areas, is to to start to build up a nucleaus at User:Dan Koehl/viking.

Or, that a english sysop or likevise gives me green light to be entitled, like everyone else, to develop the articles, without risking an edit war with you. But I will never respect any sort of "belonging behaviour" reflected by your sentence: ''as a gesture of good faith, I removed all occurrences of "Vikings" not directly connected with naval expeditions. 13:56:44 Dbachmann'', as if you posses this article.

Dab, the discussions about the article viking is maybe five times as long as the article itself. As far as I can see your name is mentioned often. Does that give you a clue? Is it possible that you dont treat this page as normal a wikipedia article, but somehow think you have larger "right" to it?

OT: Is this you? (There is a link to this file, Image:DAB Viking Loser.jpg, from your page.



Are you by any chance emotionally involved in vikings, and less historical?

As far as I can understand, I do not need any special approval from You in order to remove false information, after checking your sources before in discussions? It is not your page! I have very clearly on the discussion page questioned parts of the article, and asked for sources, and I havtn seen 1 single source.

If I change, you are entitled to discuss this with me, and check my sources but you have no right to make editwar, because you edited this page before me! I may have done an error, but not upto your level. Still, silly enough, I am prepared to cooperation, also with you, but not within your interpretion of it. Just reflect on the possibilty that cooperation with you is maybe difficult, and thats why the article viking looks like it does...

Dan Koehl 14:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will be better able to see your replies if you put them on my talk page. But don't bother, it seems this conversation is over anyway. I tried to be approach you constructively once again, but again you do not address my points. I am not involved emotionally with "Vikings", and I have become far too involved with you, over the last day. I am not here to insult people, nor am I here to be insulted. Have fun butchering the article, I am off, hoping for intellectually more pleasing debates in other areas. dab 14:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)