User talk:RicJac/Archive 2

Nice work on JAG
Hi there. Nice work on "JAG" around the world. I was planning on creating a similar table. I like yours better! Lbbzman 15:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Days (1929 film)
I see you've made Happy Days a 20th Century Fox production but in fact it was a (William) Fox Film Corporation production - before the mid-1930s merger with 20th Century Films. David Lauder 11:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-minor edits
Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. See Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on Susan J. Helms
Thanks for the cleanup. It looks much better. - Alvincura (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of JAG episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meritorious Service Medal (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) 11:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy of Sweden
Thanx for good work on the article! With this edit though, the top got screwed up: a big blank space to the right of the infobox and under the hatnote. I don't know how you did that, or how to fix it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! However I do think it is rather sad that the article in question is so short and lacking sources - for it really is topic in which there's clearly a lot to write about - while, for instance, there are corresponding articles such as Monarchy of Canada where the authors quite egregiously strive to make a hen out of a feather (not to mention the blatant monarchist-POV). I suppose that best road forward-looking course of action is to translate and incorporate elements from the Swedish WP article, which I think is fairly balanced in the sense that it expresses neither monarchist nor republican POVs. RicJac (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Generalissimo
I notice that you’ve added Crown Prince Charles John to the list of generalissimos on this page, seemingly without regard to the edit note in the list section which points out that "The term "Generalisimo" is NOT a synonym for supreme commander, or commander-in-chief, and is rarely used in English", and "All persons listed here should be supported by a source which specifically refers to them by this title" Karl Johan seems quite clearly to be covered by the former; and for the latter, the source you have provided (which is in Swedish and so cannot be verified here) is of no account unless it actually uses the term. I also note that you’ve edited the KJ page (here) to correspond to this. So, do you have any evidence that KJ was ever afforded this title, in English or otherwise? (The Swedish WP article does not say so) Can you show that the title "Generalissimus" was ever used in the Swedish military hierarchy (again, the Swedish WP does not suport this, either here or here) If you are unable to provide this evidence these contributions will have to be reverted. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That particular book can be found at the Military Archives of Sweden, and as far as I know, it its not availible online. Here is the specific catalogue post: searchUnitId0&page=4 http://asp.bicsv.se/riksarkivet/wsRecInfo.asp?idno=199654&UnitId=0&DocGrp=0&SearchUnitId=0&LoanUnitId=1&comb=AND&sString=FT=Rang-RullaAND searchUnitId0&page=4. And in that book Generalissimus is listed as a grade/rank above that of Field Marshals. In the volumes of this series published post 1818, when he became King, that title was no longer used and thus the category for Generalissimus was removed. The Swedish WP does not cover all aspects of Swedish military history. RicJac (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, he wrote this published document himself in 1813, notice the title (The Crown Prince Generalissmus, to the Army), from the National Library of Sweden database: http://libris.kb.se/bib/2390855. RicJac (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The title Generalissimus was also used in eras before, as with Lennart Torstensson, but at that time it was not a rank or grade but rather a position corresponding to a commander-in-chief in British military terminology, hence its non-inclusion this article. RicJac (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that.
 * The second source is probably more useful than the first (as I won’t be visiting the Military Archive of Sweden any time soon!) though if you have a quote from the first it would help.
 * On a wider issue, it’s probably not a good idea to add stuff on a Swedish matter to the English WP without it also being in the Swedish WP; its presence (and acceptance) there would go some way to lend credibility to what you put here.
 * Anyway, happy editing, Moonraker12 (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Trying to help
Hello! Please note this change! In English, it would not be normal to refer to the Swedish government as "the State" (as in Swedish staten), and such usage can also too easily be confused with states of a union, such as Missouri or Schleswig-Holstein. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite wrong on this: the State (with cap.) is the acceptable English translation for “staten” while the Government (also with cap.) is the acceptable English translation for “regeringen”. But I explain this in more detail at Talk:Monarchy of Sweden. RicJac (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)
An article that you have been involved in editing, National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lots of Swenglish
I'd like to express my sincere appreciation of the work you put into such articles as Monarchy of Sweden, where you add valuable information in considerable volume. However, your texts contain a lot of language errors, especially in word sequence and grammatical number on verbs. I'll now spend some time again on that article and correct what I find. There are programs you can run your English texts through in advance to avoid the worst problems being published. You can also write the lyrics in Swedish and then run them through "Google Translate", for example, so the grammar usually comes out right, and the other silliness, that that program comes up with, I'm sure you'll see yourself so you can fix it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I usually do use spelling checks and the like mentioned; however, it is increasingly difficult and impractical when using large amounts of wiki code. While I thank you for your attention and your technical corrections: not all of them are, as you falsely try to put it here, a matter of bad English, but rather expressions of your very own personal taste. In any case, I do deplore your indirect assertion of WP:OWN. RicJac (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to me to be obviously belligerent and uncooperative, and this was personally insulting. After having spent lots of time helping you, I will not do that ever again, but will collect all your word sequence and verb errors, which you are not interested in bettering, and will open an RfC about you eventually. Maybe then you'll take my good advice seriously and stop being condescending. My "personal taste" is good English, on English Wikipedia, and a work climate here where uncivil behavior is not tolerated at all as much as on Swedish Wikipedia, and where administrators are fair when dealing with such problems. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume nothing but good faith efforts from any editor. Belittling other editors with snide remarks and being none-responsive to questions asked by other editors on talk pages is not what I do. The amount of time you spend editing on Wikipedia is quite frankly not my concern, it is your business and your business alone.RicJac (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? Then there must be more than one person active through your user name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m willing to discuss content. You have a funny definition of “personal attack”, obviously you are always above reproach no matter how uncivil and condescending.RicJac (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

About you redirects
Hello RicJac. While it is great that you want to contribute to building the encyclopedia, there are some things you may want to reconsider. I noticed that you are creating new pages that function purely as redirects. Please stop doing that. Redirects should only be created when articles are merged or moved, not just to cover some different spelling in a different language. These spellings should instead be included on the page with the English name. The search engine will then find the right page anyway. Yes, there are a lot of similar redirects floating around here, but that is only because there is a backlog in removing them. I also saw that you created the page Gökhem as a redirect to Gökhem Church. Such pages and redirects are not within the policy of the English Wikipedia. I understand your thinking in creating it, I made exactly the same mistake when I was new here but was soon discouraged to do so. If you want the page to exist you should instead write a small (stub) article about the place and include that the church is situated at the locality, like in this article: Bunge (Gotland). Also make sure that what you include in the article is properly reference with reliable sources. If you are previously familiar with the Swedish Wikipedia, please bear in mind that standards are much higher here. I sometime compare them by saying that moving from SweWiki to EngWiki is like transferring from the Hemvärnet to the US Marine Corps. If you have any questions regarding editing here, do not hesitate to ask at my talk page. Best, w.carter -Talk  15:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Assumption is the mother of all... I've only been editing on enwp since 2005 (before I joined svwp); in any case, I consider a snarky response like this to be an art form. RicJac (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to Skinner
For anyone interested in the topic, Skinnner's A Genealogy of the Modern State to which you gave a link is certainly worth perusing, especially in connection with the usage of terms such as "the Crown" in the course of the political, constitutional and legal history of UK and its several parts, colonies and dependencies. Who owns "state" property in any given country (UK or other) can be considered in connection with legal proceedings: in what name can actions be brought or defended? But that also depends on the particular circumstances, particular country and the context in which the question arises, and can make it difficult for a 3O resolution. But at least it is obvious that mere bluster does not deserve to be awarded the benefit of any doubt. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Always nice to get some feedback, particularly in a context where none was expected. Your'e quite right, of course, that each country has its own constitutional system and associated history, but my main point by referring to Skinner in the discussion on the talk page in question was to illustrate the usage of "State" in the English language, given that my opponent challenged that! RicJac (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and on that point, his footnote 1, of course, makes clear that he was correcting his earlier argument of 2002 when he was operating with the assumption that there is one distinctive concept of the modern state "that historians can hope to uncover". I am glad he took the trouble to produce his later findings to redress that aberration and publish for all to see, as I have now done thanks to the link. His distinguished academic career as described in the article Quentin Skinner makes it difficult (at least at first glance) to see why he fell into the trap of such an assumption from which he later rescued himself. As I see it, yours is the better side of the discussion elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You mentioned a discussion elsewhere. Would you please illuminate the cryptic meaning of this? RicJac (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Where I found the link to Skinner. --Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have phrased that better; as I might have made an erroneous connection with the "as I have now done thanks to the link" in your previous reply, thinking that there either was or is another ongoing dispute on a talk page, other than Talk: Monarchy of Sweden, where the link might have been used in assistance to that end. RicJac (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Skinner's article is such that I feel I should clarify my comment further. Specialists in jurisprudence will be aware of the different ways in which "state" tends to be used of English institutions and derivatives in preference to other words, in comparison with similar words in other languages about the institutions of other countries. Skinner, on p. 349 et seq., shows a reason for this: the influence of Hobbes's theory upon the habits of thought of his countrymen, and the influence of translations upon Dutch and German theorists such as Pufendorf. The result is that, if and supposing "state" and "government" are or may be distinct concepts, in practice the distinction is not always admitted or scrupulously observed, nor identical in all languages or among different peoples. It is at least fairly certain that traditional usage still allows mention of "state railways" and "inter-state" highways in preference to "government" ditto, and a knowledge of the significance of "sovereign debt" has lately become indispensable. Once more, thanks for the link.Qexigator (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with what you wrote above and thanks again for the unexpected conversation! RicJac (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Security Advisor (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sununu. 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) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head of state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadruple Alliance. 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) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Walt Disney Company vs. Disney Enterprise, Inc.
Out of curiosity, why did you just change the owner on a bunch of the files I uploaded from The Walt Disney Company to Disney Enterprises, Inc. I'm not mad or anything, I'm just curious as to why, since Disney Enterprises, Incorporated is a wholly-owned subsidy of The Walt Disney Company. Elisfkc (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Call me a perfectionist or whatever; facto of the matter is that Disney Enterprises is the subsidiary to which most TWDC-controlled intellectual property rights are assigned (be it copyright or trademarks), the exceptions to this rule, save for ABC and ESPN, are recently acquired properties like Marvel or LucasFilm.RicJac (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, good enough for me. Elisfkc (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding prime minister in chain of command of armed forces based on what Reliable sources???
I noticed you added the prime minister of several countries to the chain of command of armed forces, often as chief of the minister of defense. These are not trivial edits, as each individual country may have arranged this differently. So you would need a reliable source for each of these additions.

For example, the Dutch prime ministers "special" powers are limited to being the chairman of the council of ministers; which makes him primus inter pares, but has no direct claim to any department; and hence is in no way in the line of command of the Dutch armed forces. His only content wise duties is his own portfolio of "General affairs", which is very limited, and whose most important task is managing the role of the king within the constitutional monarchy. So I am 99% sure your recent addition of the Dutch prime minister anywhere in the chain of command to the Dutch armed forces is (to put it bluntly) bollocks. Please do put your own world view on the organisation of countries that do not follow this (at least not without reliable sources). Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don’t make patronizing assumptions.


 * Just because a civilian position appears in the infobox does not mean that the position holds practical formal exercisable "command authority" (akin to that of the President of the United States, the President of the French Republic, or the President of the Russian Federation), nominal formal theoretical "command authority" (akin to the Queen of the United Kingdom or the commonwealth realm governors-general), or the equivalent of that held by uniformed officers at the highest levels. There are many cases of defense ministers appearing in the same infobox template, such as in Finland and Sweden, who does not have any significant management responsibilities over the armed forces in their respective countries at all.


 * Its not about the "internal military chain of command" per se (which is a separate issue I never touched on in the infobox itself), but rather the matter of who ultimately makes the political decision to deploy the armed forces overseas or to use them in any other unusual or irregular fashion, and setting budget levels, which has longstanding effects on any organization in far-reaching ways. In a parliamentary system, it is reasonable to assume, given the construct of the system, that such decisions will emanate from and/or depend upon the head of government, who bears the sum total political responsibility before the legislature, and ultimately the constituents. Nothing I have read on comparative constitutional law or Dutch constitutional law makes me believe that the Netherlands is an outlier in this respect. The matter of who, for all intents and purposes, selects the Dutch defence minister (note that I consciously use the word "select" and not "appoint") is in short at the crux of my argument.


 * If you claim this is all bollocks, then prove me wrong on the facts, not on your misinterpreted assumptions of what I have written. RicJac (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you got your knowledge of Dutch law from. The Dutch prime minister does not appoint, selects, nor checks any other minister. The government is selected and appointed in one go so there is no prime minister that can appoint any other minister; before these ministers also are appointed (the formateur selects ministers).


 * You can say here that you just talk about selection, but that is not what your edits show. In fact that the higher position in the infobox the implied superiority to the minister of defense. So at best the edits your made are ambiguous


 * But this all does not matter in any way. Me asking for a reliable source is enough. You want to add information, the onus is to you to provide a source that the prime minister of the Netherlands has any relevance to the armed forces or the selection of the minister. That you have not seen anything that suggest something else is not true is not an argument (I have never seen anyone reporting the moon is not purple with orange polka dots but that does not make the moon themed like that). Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * While you accurately describe the Dutch cabinet formation process, it omits the fact that the prospective prime minister comes from the senior coalition member (who surely will have considerable weight on ministerial selection and the coalition agreement in general), negates the fact that the prospective prime minister usually is the Formateur, and furthermore does not entirely cover the selection of a minister after one dies or resigns in office because the cabinet does not axiomatically fall when a single minister, other than the Prime Minister, leaves.


 * And from a formal point of view, ministerial appointments are made by royal decree (article 43), which are all countersigned by the Prime Minister (article 48), thus he or she takes the constitutional responsibility because the King cannot. Unless of course your counterargument is that, the role of the Prime Minister in this is a mere formality and all substantive decision-making rest on the King alone, which would be totally anathema to mainstream interpretation of article 42.


 * While you accuse me of ambiguity, implication of things untrue and, implicitly, making extraordinary claims; I believe you can't see the forest for the trees and are not assuming good faith on my behalf. Perhaps a discussion should be raised on the template talk page for the creation of criteria on which positions should be included in this infobox. In the end though, none of this really matters. I’m willing to concede for compromise, such as better presentation in the infobox that the supreme command rests on the king and ministers with wikilinks to the positions itself and the present king and cabinet.RicJac (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * While you are completely right that de formateur de facto almost always becomes prime minister, - at the moment of deciding/selecting the ministers the formateur is (not yet) the prime minister. Even more there are many cases where the minister of defense is not from the party of the prime minister. The negotiation between all government parties decides who will be ministers, and that the newly appointed prime minister has to countersign at the same time his own and all other appointed ministers (article 48). This is somewhat odd but clearly stipulates there is no chief minister in the Dutch government with the power to select or appoint others. The Dutch prime minister is primus inter pares. But again, if you have a reliable source that unambiguously and specifically supports your idea, I am happy to concede.


 * In fact because of the primus inter pares role of the Dutch prime minister, the ministers of finance (providing funding), internal affairs (home defense) and foreign affairs (peace keeping operations) are probably more relevant to the minister of defense than the prime minister.


 * This is not the only oddity in Dutch dealing with its army. You may have noticed that by law the government is commander in chief of the armed force and not the monarch (ie the hereditary head of state is not even ceremonial army leader). In fact the current Dutch king was brigadier (or equivalent) ranked in all branches until the day when he became king when he laid down all active military functions; and he accepted the crown wearing civilian dress. The Dutch king has no formal rank or function of any kind in the Dutch army. The Dutch king should therefore not be in any leadership or infobox for Dutch military services.


 * That all said, a major issue with adding the prime minister to the infobox is that he/she is listed under leadership. That means that at any time there is a leadershipsrole implied which goes way beyond mere selection. The higher position of the prime minister in the layout than minister of defense implies the prime minister has a more senior leadership position. While this may not be explicit, the mere headers and position imply such a ranking and is therefore original research (see e.g. WP:SYNTH). So even if we could agree that the prime minister might be mentioned somewhere, the current layout of the infobox argues against addition of prime ministers in its current spot (unless they do indeed have a senior role at each and any moment in time than the minister of defense). Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Style of the Prime Minister of Finland?
G'day RicJac!

Sorry to bother you with such an ancient edit, but I was reviewing the Prime Minister of Finland article, when I noticed a claim that the PM would use an English-language style of "Excellency", added in 2013. There are very few honorary styles for politicians in Finland that would be automatic (ex officio) - the only one that comes to mind is the President of the Repulic. Counselor of State has been traditionally offered to some distinguished, long-serving PMs around retirement, but it's by no means automatic. Google search for "prime minister finland excellency" returns some official documents from foreign sources using this style, but for example the Prime Minister's Office does not use any style for the PM. So unless a proper source can be provided, I am removing this title from the infobox for now. --hydrox (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)