User talk:Danog-76

Swedish nobility
Hi! I reverted your changed because your additions doens't really confer much new information, and it's unclearly written and has bad grammar. You can try to rewrite the changes you want in anotehr way, but I did note in the change message that your changes was unclear, so please don't just add them back again. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, OK--Danog-76 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't revert this time, instead I removed all your mistakes. Better? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good that you removed my mistakes, it was a mistake that I wrote that way as if the right was removed 1902, I wasn't thinking when I wrote that sentence (was not so interested in that and thinking of the other aspects and other things).


 * But I think it could be a little bit clearer. I think the reader should know that since 1975 the king has no expressed right to ennoble, the formulation in the constitution has been removed. But in another article in the constitution article 1 in chapter 1 all powers are granted to the people, so that could probably be interpreted as that he only can ennoble inside his own family or call them by titles, because he would then not have such powers in relation to other Swedish citizens.--Danog-76 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case I could ennoble within my family as I'm a part of the people to, so no, that doens't make any sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * yes of course, there are no rules as I said!! :) --Danog-76 (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then your conclusion is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain that!/Danog-76 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no rules, then he has no legal right to ennoble anyone. It is in that case Riddarhuset that decides, and no one else.
 * And please stop edit warring. You are constantly adding incorrect information or "explanations" that do not add anything. Stop doing that. Discuss the changes before you do them, it should be obvious for you by now that your edits are not uncontroversial. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The last can be said about you too (tack detsamma!), I want to agree with you instead. What is your interpretation of that it is no rule, and shouldn't that be mentioned in the article ("expressed")? /Danog-76 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned. "Since 1975 the Swedish monarch no longer has the legal right to ennoble or to confer knighthoods and orders to Swedes". It previously said "outside the royal family", and I'm still confused about that part, because I can't find the process of how their titles happen. So maybe that part should be reintroduced as well, in which case there is no difference between the text before you started editing and the end result. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't it be mentioned that he conferred nonheriditary knighthoods and orders until 1975? I mean that that could be a little bit clearer in the article --Danog-76 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, because again, that would imply that he could not confer heriditary knighthoods before that, which he could. §37 from 1809 år regeringsform: "Konungen äger att upphöja till adeligt stånd och värde män, som genom trohet, tapperhet och dygd, lärdom och nitiska tjenster gjort sig af konungen och riket synnerligen förtjente. Konungen må med grefligt och friherrligt stånd benåda män, som genom stora och utmärkta förtjenster dertill värdiga anses. Ej må adelskap eller greflig eller friherrlig värdighet, som hädanefter förlänas, tillfalla flere än den, hvilken adlad eller upphöjd blifvit, samt efter honom hans äldste manlige bröstarfving i rätt nedstigande led efter led, samt efter denna grens utgång stamfaderns närmaste manliga afkomling, och så vidare." The change was in 1975. The article already mentions this.
 * Again: "Since 1975 the Swedish monarch no longer has the right to ennoble or to confer knighthoods and orders to Swedes." What, exactly, do you find unclear with that sentence? What confuses you? In what way do you find that sentence unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean before 1975? couldn't that be mentioned? /Danog-76 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that it could be mentioned that he used to confer nonhereditary knighthoods before 1975 and that it was totally forbidden after that, that is not clearly stated in the article as far as I know. /Danog-76 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It *is* mentioned. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is it mentioned that he conferred nonheriditary knighthoods until 1975? --Danog-76 (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Hereditary ennoblements" are mentioned several times, making it clear that there is also non-hereditary ennoblements. This could possibly be clarified, but not in the sentence you have been editing. It is also mentioned that the right to ennoble was removed in 1975. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we can agree upon that, that it should be mentioned that he in fact did confer nonheriditary knighthoods until 1975, can you do that? /Danog-76 (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's good. Could you mention the knighthoods in the orders too? /Danog-76 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gothic architecture
In English, "generally" means the same as "usually" or "nearly always" but not always. This means that the statement: In France this is generally a rose window means in "most but not all cases. So having given a possitive example (Reims), you don't have to add a negative example. Likewise to say that this is "often" the case in Spain and Italy means not always and therefore you don't need to say but not at this and this and this.''  The case of England, where it is never is worth a mention.

The article deals with a huge number of features and points, and is long already. If I were to go through it and add possitve and negative examples for every detail ie there is a carved tympanum at Notre Dame but not at Canterbury, there are clustered columns in the nave of Milan Cathedral and Wells Cathedral but not at Notre Dame or the church of Ss Giovanni and Florence Cathedral the entire article would become interminably long. If anyone wants specific details, they need to find them on the buildings' own web pages.

The problem is in part that every addition you make is voiced in the "negative" rather than the positive. You keep writing what is not rather than what is. That is not beneficial. It would be useful perhaps to add, in the positive voice, that rose windows are also found where there is the influence of French architects, rather than "not found where there is no influence of French architects.

Amandajm (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Swedish language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Swedish heraldry FAC
I recently nominated Swedish heraldry for WP:FAC, and we need knowledgeable editors to comment on the article. Since you have been a contributor to that article, I hope you will take some time to look it over and leave your comments at Featured article candidates/Swedish heraldry/archive1. Thank you for your time and your contributions! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you! I´ll do it in the weekend or before that.--Danog-76 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Old Norse morphology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiplicative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Reich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishopric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. When you recently edited Longcase clock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)