![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following are old discussions no longer watched by anyone.
Add this to the
User:Kenneth Alan Vanir theory list. Another page where he added his pet theory as fact.
Martijn faassen 23:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Right now the article has been semi NPOV-ed, saying 'it has been theorized that'. I would like to have some actual cites beyond Kenneth Alan's assertions. These can be added to the article. If none are provided, I will remove this section. Martijn faassen 20:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is not a war, and there is no reason for name-calling. I did not flail wildly and did not refer to your theory as horrors. Reading wikipedia, I found more and more of your assertions on Vanir/Aesir scattered throughout a large quantity of articles, as factual statements. Eventually I naturally started looking for more information.
I noticed these were all added by you, sometimes as supposedly minor edits with rather misleading comments. I'm evidently the first person on wikipedia to notice and respond to your activities, which is hardly a suprise to me. I've only noticed yesterday, myself.
Your additions frequently refer to various concepts out of the blue, without proper introduction, as if the casual reader is familiar with them already. They're not.
I am doubtful many historians share your views, and you seem to have admitted it is your original theory. I think it is therefore misleading to present your theory about Germanic origins as factual in wikipedia. You have been doing this, and putting the burden to NPOV these on me is unfair. You should've been more responsible yourself.
I doubt however that inclusion in a more NPOV form ("It has been theorized that") is a big improvement, as this still implies this is a major theory in the field, while it is not.
In response you've been responding with aggressive statements, repeatedly calling me a small minded fool, and comparing yourself with the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. This not increasing my confidence in your other assertions. Martijn faassen 23:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Although it looks like a lake, I think it's defined as a inland sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.156.198 ( talk) 12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a usage one sees with both Vänern and Vättern, where the names appear alone, without "Lake".
Is that a traditional style in English, or is it a recent borrowing from Swedish?
Sweden is odd already, since the Kattegat and the Skagerrak lie off her coast. Once again, with those bodies of water, we do not add a qualifying term to the name, like "Strait" or "Sea".
Varlaam (
talk)
06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Alfie Gandon, regarding this edit you made, removing unsourced material is one thing, but removing the infobox, WP:Lead, and sourced material is another, which is why I reverted you here. That edit was also not a minor edit, which is likely why it showed up in my WP:STiki window. Do not mark edits as minor when they are not; see WP:Minor. Also see WP:Preserve.
Hmains and Andy Dingley, I see you in the edit history. Are you watching this article? Any opinion on Alfie Gandon's edit? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction it says the average depth is 28 meters while in the Geography section it says 27 meters. Which of these is correct? One of them should be changed, right? Morphior ( talk) 22:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following are old discussions no longer watched by anyone.
Add this to the
User:Kenneth Alan Vanir theory list. Another page where he added his pet theory as fact.
Martijn faassen 23:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Right now the article has been semi NPOV-ed, saying 'it has been theorized that'. I would like to have some actual cites beyond Kenneth Alan's assertions. These can be added to the article. If none are provided, I will remove this section. Martijn faassen 20:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is not a war, and there is no reason for name-calling. I did not flail wildly and did not refer to your theory as horrors. Reading wikipedia, I found more and more of your assertions on Vanir/Aesir scattered throughout a large quantity of articles, as factual statements. Eventually I naturally started looking for more information.
I noticed these were all added by you, sometimes as supposedly minor edits with rather misleading comments. I'm evidently the first person on wikipedia to notice and respond to your activities, which is hardly a suprise to me. I've only noticed yesterday, myself.
Your additions frequently refer to various concepts out of the blue, without proper introduction, as if the casual reader is familiar with them already. They're not.
I am doubtful many historians share your views, and you seem to have admitted it is your original theory. I think it is therefore misleading to present your theory about Germanic origins as factual in wikipedia. You have been doing this, and putting the burden to NPOV these on me is unfair. You should've been more responsible yourself.
I doubt however that inclusion in a more NPOV form ("It has been theorized that") is a big improvement, as this still implies this is a major theory in the field, while it is not.
In response you've been responding with aggressive statements, repeatedly calling me a small minded fool, and comparing yourself with the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. This not increasing my confidence in your other assertions. Martijn faassen 23:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Although it looks like a lake, I think it's defined as a inland sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.156.198 ( talk) 12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a usage one sees with both Vänern and Vättern, where the names appear alone, without "Lake".
Is that a traditional style in English, or is it a recent borrowing from Swedish?
Sweden is odd already, since the Kattegat and the Skagerrak lie off her coast. Once again, with those bodies of water, we do not add a qualifying term to the name, like "Strait" or "Sea".
Varlaam (
talk)
06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Alfie Gandon, regarding this edit you made, removing unsourced material is one thing, but removing the infobox, WP:Lead, and sourced material is another, which is why I reverted you here. That edit was also not a minor edit, which is likely why it showed up in my WP:STiki window. Do not mark edits as minor when they are not; see WP:Minor. Also see WP:Preserve.
Hmains and Andy Dingley, I see you in the edit history. Are you watching this article? Any opinion on Alfie Gandon's edit? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction it says the average depth is 28 meters while in the Geography section it says 27 meters. Which of these is correct? One of them should be changed, right? Morphior ( talk) 22:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)