User talk:Ludde23/2006-2007 archive

89

I'm guessing one of my kids was meddling with the keyboard when I walked away from the PC and I didn't notice before I saved it. Good catch, thanks! •Jim62sch• 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I plan on going through the year articles in other languages, if I run across something on the Swedish articles that I don't have can you translate for me? As I said, I can read a little Swedish (by way of German), but only enough to know a really general idea of what it's about. BTW, I don't know if you can speak French (your English is excellent by the way) but the French year articles are quite good, and I've piched a good bit from them. Tack så hemskt mycket!

PS, I ran across your Swedish page as I was trying to find out info on Annius Rufus. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My condolences on the passing of your Grandmother. I have a feeling that working together, the Swedish and English year articles might become the archetypical year articles (right now, I'd have to give that title to the French articles). Language question: are you aware of a good Swedish on-line course? I found one for Norsk (Nynorsk) -- my dad was half Norwegian -- but I think that overall Swedish is slightly more valuable (especially if one is a hockey fan -- I live in Philadelphia, current hometeam of Peter Forsberg). Take care. •Jim62sch• 22:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The French article had Arminius' death dated as 19 -- and they were wrong. Thanks for catching that, I'll fix it. •Jim62sch• 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I now know that English isn't the only language slaughtered by its native speakers. I too make a lot of grammar edits, though I'm not as much of a perfectionist as I used to be -- primarily because I get very tired of fixing mistakes that are born of ignorance. (I'll send you a link to my blog as thar has an article on those errors).

To edit your signature, go to My Preferences and put your signature in the "Nickname" box (be sure to check "raw". For example, here's a modified version of mine with your user name and a different font and colours:

•Ludde23•, ^talk You should be able to just put that string in the nickname box and then check it on your user page.

The colours are listed here: colours

My abbreviations are a function of laziness, ce=copyedit, wiki=add wiki links, rem ol=remove overlinking, yb's=add year boxes (all three boxes at once), hdr=header. I think that's all of them.

It's -5 UTC normally, but -4 during DST, so the difference between here and Sweden should always be 6 hours* (a heck of a lot easier than dealing with Australia :)

* excpt that we start a week later.

Odd question: what is the most popular food in Sweden?

Take care. •Jim62sch• 13:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pizza's big here too, pasta not as much -- on the coasts where the Italians settled, yes, but in the heartland, not so much. But, so many Americans live on McDonald's slop it isn't funny. I prefer real food, and since I do the cooking, we eat a wide variety of stuff -- German, French, Italian, Mexican, Asian, American, etc. (No Norwegian recipes from my ancestors though, but given that they eat Luttefisk, I think I can live without it  ;) (One aside about Pizza -- if you're in the states, Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Chicago have good pizza -- don't go near it on the west coast...alfalfa sprouts and tofu don't belong on a pizza) Right now I'm in three phases on the year articles, the formatting is done up to 610, the initial additions to 412, and the re-editing to about 60, it just depends on what mood I'm in which I decide to do. Take care, •Jim62sch• 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I use monobook for the skin...too lazy to change. Orange spots on the ceiling, eh? Hmmm.

I like the way you have the {{Årtal 1-799}} take care of creating the year box (although I prefer the fomat of the actual yb itself that we have on en-wiki). If there was a way to program that for en-wiki using the yb I currently use (and maybe incorporating the 2 other boxes as well) it'd be great. Where does the program pull the year from, the article title? (What's (a) båttypen? (not sure if that's plural or if the n at the end of the word is the article). I understood the rest of the dab on the 470 article).

Meatballs -- I make meatballs too, but my own recipe based on the Italian variety. Don't the Swedish-variety meatballs have a sweetener (jelly?) in them? I've only every had Swedish meatballs from a box -- there's a paucity of good Scandanavian restaurants in the US. In fact, the only one I can think of that is any good is in New York, called Aquavit.

Oh, and yes, if you pass where I'm at on the English articles feel free to add the yb's etc. Take care! •Jim62sch• 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Parser Function looks interesting and rather useful. Any chance you could show me the script behind the Årtal 1-799 template?

Thanks for explaining båttypen -- the method is the same as Norwegian (no surprise there given the history of Norway and Sweden). I'm going through the Swedish year articles and comparing tem to the English articles to try to get a sense of how Swedish works. As with all languages, some parts are easy to figure out, others are not.

Question, I know what the following sentence means, but can you give me a literal, word-for-word translation? "Lejon är utrotade i Europa senast vid denna tid"

Believe it or not, I have a fiend who puts grape jelly in her meatballs -- it's actually not bas. My meatball recipe is a bit more involved -- I can send it to you on e-mail if you're interested.

I was looking up sunrise/sunset times in different cities in the world for my daughter the other day and I noticed that Stockholm has a whopping 2 hours of total darkness right now, that's got to be a bit weird. (As must be December 21, when it has 6 hours of daylight).

Oh, before I forget, dab is short for disambiguation. Ciao, •Jim62sch• 11:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Swedish lesson! I wasn't sure if it was senast or utrotade that meant extinct (is utrotade a compound word?). Oh, I took vid to mean "by", not at -- oops. Nice to see that Swedish has "zero plurals", too, we certainly have enough in English -- deer, fish, etc.
This, "I have a fiend who puts grape jelly in her meatballs -- it's actually not bas", was one of my rrather too frequent typos. It should have been, "I have a friend who puts grape jelly in her meatballs -- it's actually not bad"
"{" and "}" are called brackets (gullwings sounds better), and # is the pound sign.
Since I used to be a programmer, the parser function looks pretty easy to understand. Now, for the next question: when you write the script, where on Wiki is it stored?
Sunrise (SR) and sunset (SS) in Philly: June 21, SR - 5:32 AM, SS - 8:33 PM; December 21, SR - 7:19 AM, SS - 4:39 PM. Here's a link to a pretty good site to get info on places all over the world, [1].
Changing subjects: which is the front-line Swedish fighter plane now -- Drakken or Viggen? See ya, •Jim62sch• 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hej Ludde, goddag, sorry it took so long to get back to you -- things have been crazy.

I started studying Swedish -- but don't expect too much from me yet. The fastest I ever learned a language was about a month, and that was Portuguese and since I already knew Latin, Catalan, Spanishj, French and Italian by then, it was pretty easy. Of Germanic languages, on the other hand, I really only know two -- English and German, so I expect it to take a bit more time.

On the house, mouse, louse thing: in Old English mouse (mus) and louse (lus) were masculine nouns with a strong declension and an "i mutation"; house (hus) was a neuter noun with a weak declension and no i mutation. Since that pattern seems to run through Germanic languages (primarily low German and Nordic languages), I'm guessing that Old Norse had the same basic declension and i mutation as Old English.

I love history and could never really understand why more people don't. I guess part of it is that in the States many history teachers worry more about dates and names and places than they do why those dates, names and places were important. They never really get inside the history to show why it's interesting. In any case, I have quite a significant number of history books in my own library, with a roughly equal distribution between European history and American history. (I think our attraction to the year articles is the same).

So what other subjects are you interested in? I have a whole slew of academic interests that range from history to linguistics, political science to theoretical physics/cosmology, reading to music to philosophy to cooking, etc. Adjö, •Jim62sch• 09:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried, I'm getting screwed up on part of it!

Introducing the Beau Brummels, The Beau Brummels debutalbum, släppt april 1965. På albumet finns gruppens två kändaste låtar "Laugh, Laugh" och "Just a Little" men de övriga låtarna på albumet brukar även de räknas som gruppens finare material.

Introducing the Beau Brummels, The Beau Brummels debut album came out in April 1965. This album contains the group’s two biggest hits, "Laugh, Laugh" and "Just a Little" but de övriga låtarna på albumet brukar även de räknas som gruppens finare material. (has some of the group’s finest material).

•Jim62sch• 14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ludde, I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you...things have been really hectic. I'll respond more fully tomorrow. •Jim62sch• 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ludde, can you e-mail me from my user page? •Jim62sch• 10:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just send it regular: jim62sch@aol.com

• OK I will not change User:Skoglund

Changes to 494BC

Thanks for your corrections. It does read better using present tense! --Chaleyer61 09:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I will try to use present tense. Igor Skoglund

Pre 101

Yes, I was aware of this. I am avoiding those years for now, but may change it later. ed g2s • talk 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludde23 wrote, "What about years BC? And what about the 1st century? Check those out and fix them, please! /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)"

Response (02-Feb-2007): I have developed a new nav-box for 1st century (only): it is fairly complex and called "Template:Year nav 1st century CE" which can handle years 1-100 (and show years BC), such as for year "2":

{{Year nav 1st century CE|2}}

The calculations are so complex that the template is dangerous to maintain, and is being purposely limited to years 1-100. An even more complex template could be created to handle any year, but perhaps, only 1 person in 1000 could understand the multiple nested calculations, making such an any-year template very dangerous to maintain. Wikitables do not yet use typical computer-language syntax, so an any-year template might use "#ifeq" nesting calculations to handle any specified year; however, even experienced computer programmers would see such a template as too arcane and obtuse to easily modify. Rule of programming: "If no one else could modify it, avoid writing it" (rule of thumb). I plan to create some less complex templates to handle only years BC. Later. -Wikid77 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thank you for your kind words with regard to my work on the year by year history articles. I have been overseas in Europe for the last four weeks (I was unable to get to Sweden unfortunately!), so I have not had the opportunity until now to respond to your comments. Nor have I had the opportunity to do any further work on updating the year by year history articles.

I am now on leave from work for the next three weeks -- in Australia this is the time of year when most people take their annual leave. I hope to do quite a bit more work on updating articles for the remaining years of the fifth century BC and hopefully move into the fourth century BC during my period on leave. If I had the time, I would like to update many more years. I am interested in medieval European history as well as ancient European and Middle Eastern history.

Regards

Chaleyer61 ^{Talk Contrib} 09:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for picking up all the errors in layout and factual errors. Much appreciated. Have a Happy New Year!! --Chaleyer61 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

308

Why shouldn't the notice at the top of 308 not say that it refers to 308 AD? I can see the consistency argument to a point, but the fact is that "the year 308" is ambiguous, and there is also an article for 308 BC. Spute 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

66

No telecom in 66AD? Arrrgh. I'm sorry about that. Thanks for catching that. I meant for that to be on the DAB page, but wasn't paying attention. --Mdwyer 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Year nav BC

02-February-2007 (also in ^{ed g2s-Talk}): Okay, I have created "Template:Year nav BC" to handle any year BC, from 1 BC or earlier (fairly complex). For balance, when displaying years not BC, it shows the year-link but adds tiny "CE" such as "3 CE" as opposed to "3 BC" (most years are BC). Putting tiny BC/CE makes the table more narrow, allowing more text to the lefthand side, and the larger numerals are more visible as link choices to click. Complexity: Yes, it is fairly complex, but with the current internal comments, I think it could be understood & modified. Also, I intend to add a few more comments & "see-alsos" linking Wikitable help-pages. Vandalprone: It's dangerous; however, I plan to create a redundant variation as "Template:Year nav BCE" showing "BCE" not "BC" dates; those 2 templates could be compared, if one breaks, to help spot hidden vandalism. (Can you imagine if the Wiki-editing software were open to anonymous IP-address modifications?) It appears any article should be verified once-per-month for hidden vandalism/glitches, but that also promotes improvements, based on formats or images/artwork from other articles. Reserving verification time once-per-month can make it tolerable. BTW: I was stunned at the myriad number of current years-BC article names. Later. -Wikid77 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

References in Year Articles

Thank you for your feedback. I am pleased that you appreciate what I'm doing.

I know you are using some of my material for your language specific sites which is great. I find it interesting to note that most of the changes that other people are making to my entries relate to putting in fancy boxes or fancy software and links, rather than actually improving were checking the quality of what is there (which is what you do).

With regard to your question, I stopped adding the references when concerns were raised with me about quoting the books that I was using as general references rather than giving specific page numbers from each entry I was making. I thought having to give specific page references for each entry, while feasible, was too labour-intensive.

In addition, I work on the principle that what I'm putting into the "year" pages actually reflects material that is already on Wikipedia, rather than a lot of new material. Effectively, I am synthesising a diverse range of articles on Wikipedia into entries that can neatly fit into a particular year.

Therefore, it doesn't really make much sense referring to the references that I am using to doublecheck that the Wikipedia entries are correct.

I hope my explanation makes sense.

Regards

--Chaleyer61 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the cleanups of the 490BCs. That looks much better!!

--Chaleyer61 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Layout of my User Page

You are right. The "ACT" box is for some reason unknown to me slightly in the wrong place and it has this other bigger box with dotted lines around it.

Do you know what is causing the problem? I would like to have my few user boxes in neat rows. Regards --Chaleyer61 10:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Marvellous. Thanks for your help!! --Chaleyer61 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy for you to fix the date. Reminds me that I have to find the time to keep going into the 3rd century BC!!  :) --Chaleyer61 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki links to year

First off, I want to apologize to you if I offended you with my comments. I posted the following on the 300 page:

Ludde23 - No offense was taken on my part Adding the 300 movie link makes since to me. However, I think this issue reflects a larger issue - that being when there are other popular references to a number (such as Seven, 69, 300, 666, 911, 1984, 2001, etc), a person's search goes automatically to the year. If they are not searching for the year, then that person must go to the disambiguation page and then finally to the other page they want. Perhaps Wikipedia has already addressed this issue and it was determine that it was better in the long run to have it always go to year; but it seems to me it is just effective to go to a disambiguation page in certain select cases (where there is "significant" (whatever that is determined might mean) other references other than the year). Unfortunately I am not sure where to post this problem if it actually exists.

If you know that this has been addressed already, please let me know. Yours Jvsett 07:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Helping me with your "clean ups"

Thanks very much for all your careful work "cleaning up" my mistakes and layout problems. I appreciate it that you are picking up a number of my spelling errors and grammatical mistakes and fixing them. (I wish Wikipedia had a spell checker as I am a poor typist.) Your efforts are making my big task easier!! Regards --Chaleyer61 10:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest feedback. I must admit that I greatly admire your grasp of English grammar and spelling. For a person for whom (I assume) English is a second language (ie not your mother tongue), you manage to pick up a number of my spelling and grammatical errors and errors in tense. I am impressed!! I would hate to think how long I would need to learn Swedish to come anywhere near the equivalent of your standard of English.

And thanks for the warnings about the dating of Jesus' life. You are right - I will tread carefully when I get there. Although at the rate I am going, that will still be some months away! --Chaleyer61 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been busy responding to Skogland's changes again. Thanks for keeping an eye on the accuracy of his changes. He does not seem to be paying as much attention as he should be to the accuracy of the information he is adding to Wikipedia. --Chaleyer61 10:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Following your questions, I checked my main history source which is "A History of Rome to A.D. 565 by William G. Sinnigen and Arthur E.R. Boak (6th ed, 1977). As a result, I have updated both entries, i.e. 366 BC and 356 BC. Hopefully, my information is now correct. Thanks for pointing out the problem. --Chaleyer61 09:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. It is amazing how time flies! I did not realise how much time has passed until you pointed out that I've been involved in this "project" for a year already. I hope you enjoy your holiday and that all goes well with your planning for your wedding. In the meantime, when I get the time I will keep on soldiering on with the changes that I have been making to the year by year record. All the best to you and your future partner. Regards from Australia. --Chaleyer61 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparta BC/BCE

okay I accept that you hav tried for a compromize but what is important here is that the two notations hav equal status and that Wiki should not come down on one side or the other (given there is no concensus). It would be a compromise when all pages had the notation you hav tried. Until then I'd like to keep the small minority of BCE pages the way they are. Of course if BC pages were moved to BCE then the sparta page would not have redirectsDejvid 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All other things being equal redirects should be avoided - true. But in this case things are not equal. The de facto compromize has been to repect the status quo and the small overhead of the redirects is small price to pay for avoiding conflict. If people start using the redirects as an argument for excluding BCE this opens up the prospect of move-wars over the BC-BCE pages. When there has been votes on this issue it has shown that wiki is split down the middle. Under those circumstances a fair compromize would be a 50% split.Dejvid 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Category:1st century BC works (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

245 BC - Alexander of Corith

Just in case you are wondering, I made the latest change to 245 BC - I just forgot to log on!! --Chaleyer61 10:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help on 411

I'm so relieved it has been fixed. I tried to move it back from 411 (year) but obviously, I didn't quite know how (since I had to move the discussion manually and I couldn't get the history moved too). I would just like to clarify, that it wasn't me who moved it in the first place, but I tried to rectify it.

Speaking of moving: Is it only admins who can move a page back in the correct manner or can anyone do this?

Once again: Thank you for fixing 411. I was quite worried for a while. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 09:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. The page history says it all, so I know you're not the guilty one, and it worked out all fine in the end. As to your query, only administrators can move a page over an existing one, except where the sole edit has been to redirect to the original page, as stated here. Harryboyles 09:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Including fictional references in 382 BC

It's your call. I won't revert this entry again. But I have to say that I don't agree with the idea that events that are clearly fictional should be recorded in these pages which should focus on real historical events. --Chaleyer61 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

226 BC

How does having the plain text "* Wikipedia articles that link to this article." count as a reference? Not a dog 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstood

Sorry I am working on fixing it. Recently I have spent little on wikipedia. If you could help me fix it that would be great. And I mean the tv series. Plasmax 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Plasmax

Using "b." for "born" with birth dates with a "c." for "circa"

Hi there. I don't know if there's been a discussion on this somewhere (I have no idea where to start to look) but when I noticed this edit diff, I thought the new version could easily cause confusion. I know it's supposed to mean "born circa", but it also looks a lot like BC and I think could be easily mistaken. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Copying reply placed on my talk page to here for continuity of the conversation. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Well, my thought was just to use the same system as on most other year articles. Secondly, I didn't think it would cause any confusion, since there's a space between the letters and they occur before the year and the BC notion can be found after it, as in b. c. 300 BC. But, of course, if this system is undesirable, it shouldn't be used. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. I hope you don't mind I copied your reply back to here. After I got your message, I got to wondering that it seemed unlikely that this was the first time this has come up- so I checked the Manual of style. Surprisingly enough to me, I found that we're both wrong. MOS:DATE#Dates of birth and death seems to prefer the linked abbreviation fl. instead of born circa or b. ca. or whatever. Go figure. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things, though, that make me think fl. shouldn't be used in this case. That is used when neither birth nor death date is known. Secondly, on the year pages, you only have to put forth one date. If you're putting the person under Deaths, you only have to mention when he was born and vice versa. Thirdly, I doubt many people would understand what fl. means. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 18:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

42

Okay, I'm intrigued, since there's clearly a reason. Why shouldn't I remove the asterisk? (I reverted it originally because I just assumed it was an accidental edit as you had no history of vandalism, a good history of editing and it hardly qualified as disruptive). I'm just curious. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right! (I checked; not because I didn't believe you, but because it is always prudent to confirm things). Thanks for the reply, I'll see if I can find out what the actual reasoning is (maybe to let new users know how to create a list). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the dob linkson my page :)Wolfmankurd 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Which year is it?

First of all, congratulations on your forthcoming wedding. I wish you and your spouse all the best for a very happy future together! I am sorry, I don't even know if you are male or female.

With regard to the year in which Gelo left responsibility for Gela to his brother Hieron, I have checked my various references and agree with you that it should be 485 BC. In the various texts that I have such as the Pelican History of Greece, the Chronology of the Ancient World and the Oxford Who's Who in the Classical World and my copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica CD -- all refer to 485 BC. So frankly I have no idea where I got 484 BC from!

So my apologies for the error and I will correct my error this evening.

Regards

--Chaleyer61 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a male as well. I am happily married with three lovely daughters. --Chaleyer61 23:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope all went well with the wedding and the celebrations. Thank you for picking up a number of typos and inconsistencies in my latest work. I am keeping you busy!! --Chaleyer61 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to my CD version (2001) of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the entry on Megara Hyblaea says, "in 483 [the city] was destroyed by the Syracusan leader Gelon." I note that the current online version of the Encyclopædia Britannica has exactly the same words. None of my Greek history texts specfically mentions the date of this event. However, as you point out, the Wikipedia article on Megara Hyblaea refers the destruction happening to 481 BC. The challenge in putting a specific year to events such as this is that nobody really knows with any accuracy what year these events took place due to the paucity of good historical records. So, happy for you to change the year if you wish to make it consitent with the Wikipedia article or we can rely on the Encyclopædia Britannica. --Chaleyer61 11:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not dead nor have I become an invalid!! In Australia, the Federal Government has just called (on Sunday) an election to be held on 24 November (they happen every three years). As I am a government public servant, I have been very busy in the lead up to the election. So I have only had time to keep an eye on my subject interests on Wikipedia, but not much more. I hope to get back to my research and do more entries in the next couple of weeks. Thanks for checking on my health!! Regards. --Chaleyer61 09:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is the Social Democratic party in this country. So I think one would class it as a centre-left political party. Yes, I am pleased with the result, because we had a very conservative government up until now and I think many people on lower incomes were starting to suffer from the previous government's policies. While I am happy that the ALP won, as a senior public servant I expect to see many changes in the way the new Government will operate. The Australian public service is not political with even very senior positions in the public service not affected by political interference. Nevertheless, we expect many changes to the shape and functions of our departments and changes to policy directions over the coming weeks. So life will become very interesting from now until we have our Christmas (summer) holidays in late December. Regards --Chaleyer61 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Monarchs of Denmark

Greetings Ludde23. Very nice work creating this template, but I'm a bit surprised seing Oluf (son of Margaret I) counted as Oluf III. Who do you consider to be Oluf II? The website of the Danish monarchy refers to him as Oluf II and to Oluf Hunger as Oluf I.[2] Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Ludde. I just realised where you might have picked up the confusion regarding the Olufs of Denmark. Oluf Haraldsen proclaimed himself Oluf II at Sankt Libers Høj in Scania but was defeated a few years later. The archbishop in Lund never recognized him and Oluf replaced him with a puppet. Archbishop Eskil fled to Zealand and the court of King Eric III, and Eric defeated Oluf a few years later. He was never recognized as king outside of Scania, and he is generally not included in lists of Danish monarchs. E.g. he is omitted from the list of monarchs in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi and the official website of the Danish monarchy. I've updated the relevant pages. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

185 BC

Hi. I was just killing time hitting "Random article" and cleaning up as I went. I'm not familiar with any conventions used on year pages, so if you say the death date goes last, OK. The other change, "He founds" to "and founding", seems wrong to me. His assassinating the emperor brought an end to the old dynasty, but it didn't found the new one. I hope you see what I mean. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

• Thank you for help in correcting my articles. Igor Skoglund. —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

209 BC

related with this edit.
Image:Kkbrove_yeni.jpg
Here is written 209 BC (MÖ=BC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Timeline_of_the_Turkish_Army --Ilhanli (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There was many countries found by the Turks/Turkics. But I don't talk about a country, I'm talkink about Turks/Turkic tribes/people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Türk ordusunun tarihi Orta Asya steplerine kadar gitmektedir.M.Ö.209 yılında Mete Han tarafından kurulduğu düşünülen Türk Ordusu dünyanın en eski ordularından biridir."
"The history of the Turks=Turkics goes to the steps of Sentral-Asia. It is thought that the first Turkish=Turkic (in Turkish there is only one word (Türk) for Turkics and Turks words) army was found by Mete Han in 209 BC."
But I realized that Mete Han could be Mongolian. --Ilhanli (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)