User talk:Sparviere

Hi, I'm wondering about your picture from Molde, Image:Molde3.jpg. Isn't this just a scanned postcard? And if so, are you its copyright holder? — Pladask 18:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard? Gee, I don't know. I put it there, but didn't scan it, that's for sure. It's from the Internet, but it had not certificate, so I cannot be ant more specific. If I find a better one WITH a less dubious source, I'll replace it.

Chris

OK, thanks, Pladask. I replaced it with one taken by a relative of mine.

Thanks. I'm afraid the same goes for Image:Molde240.jpg, though. Unfortunately you can't just download images off the internet and assume the copyright holder approves. In any case, thanks for your work on the article. — Pladask 11:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

The pic molde240 is released. I found it in the "share" section.

Åndalsnes is a township

Noticed that in the article on Romsdal you changed - "Åndalsnes is a Norwegian town" to "Åndalsnes is a township". In English a township is roughly equivalent to a Norwegian municipality (kommuner). Åndalsnes is probably not a township/municipality since it lies within a municipality. If you have no problem I propose to change the text back to town.

Of course I may be wrong and welcome education. Takk - Williamborg 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tusen takk - Williamborg 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

I believe I MEANT to say it is a TOWN. A township can be anything with more than 5 houses, and if memory serves me right, Andalsnes is surely more than that. Thanks for pointing it out!!

Chris

Romsdal Penninsula

I took the liberty of rewriting your otherwise splendid article on the Romsdal Peninsula into more palatable English, since the old version had an unmistakable flavor of NorwEnglish...

--Sparviere 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Sparviere[reply]

And a very nice job you did, too! Tusen takk - Williamborg 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romsdal edit

Lovely contributions to Romsdal. Williamborg (Bill) 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Sparviere 13:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMG_07291.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG_07291.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been nominated for deleted because it is an orphan, ie the image is not being used in any article. Also, given the complete lack of any description, details or links on the image page there is no way another user would ever be able to make use of this image. Make the image useful for others to re-use by adding details to the image page that would answer the basic what, where and when questions. List the city, state, province, country etc; when was the image taken; what is it a photo of. The nomination of the image is nothing personal -- make use of the image and make it easy for others to re-use the image and the image will not be deleted. If you have any futher questions, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be pretty self-evident! I can see someone misposting an image, but it has been there fo a long time, and I went through the obligatory "what kind of picture is this" questions when I posted it. But, by all means, I will add a description. Just leave it - I will take care of it

Article on ritual slaughter, the Animal Protection Societies, stunning methods, etc.

[1] RPSM (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I understand your point, and changed 'bans' to 'effective bans' in the article. Nevertheless, when you go back to the debates in the Swedish and other law making assemblies banning Jews from slaughtering was the primary focusRPSM (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have Pascal Krauthammers book Das Schächtverbot im Schweiz. It is a doctoral dissertation. He doesn't bother to mention the business that shehitah (jewish slaughter / kosher slaughter / ritual slaughter) is not mentioned in the text of the law: neither in the German text or the English Summary. The tabular arrangement of the article Legal aspects of ritual slaughter is stupid. It is cribbed from a term paper by a student at Harvard Law School. But Religious Freedom (Lewin has a country by country list, but that is within a chronological framework. The Swiss laws in the cantons of Aargau and St Gallen were abrogated on advice of vetinary experts. The national referendum achieved a result after an antisemitic campaign against the advice and wishes of the government. When Hitler came to power, only Saxony and Switzerland and Norway had bans. (The Soviet banned religious slaughter because no religious rite could be practised on state property (the animals were the property of the state). Bans imposed by Hitler on the whole of Europe had no scientific base. All of these were removed by the Allies. So what the ... Norway and Sweden's bans were proposed by members of the Agrarian (Sw bondeförbundet) party. They were Nazi sympathizers. The Norwegian guy who proposesd the ban was a member of the Nazi puppet government. The only purpose of an accurate chronological account is to show there was no science to support the laws. no need for the table. the guy who said "We need a table" has left the field. He appeared to be an Animal Rights activist or sympathiser. Much better to read Krauthammer's book than this article full of stuff off the web. RPSM (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question came up in the Swedish article (Skäktning) and this was the reply of one administrator:

3):::Wvs, det är beklagligt att du finner mig (eller åtminstone min diskussionsteknik) förvirrad. Det är förvisso sant att vi inte har någon lag som uttryckligen förbjuder skäktning i Sverige. De allra flesta länder i Europa och Amerika gör emellertid undantag för just skäktning (enligt den definition du angav ovan). Det gör inte Sverige. Lagen (utan det undantag som är vanligt i andra länder) togs i slutet på 1930-talet. Många, framför allt judiska, kritiker har pekat på de antisemitiska strömningar som bland annat låg bakom liknande lagar i Tyskland. Att utifrån detta dra slutsatsen att vi de facto har ett förbud mot skäktning i Sverige tycker jag inte är så långsökt, inte heller att det finns skäl att misstänka att antisemitiska strömningar hade ett visst inflytande. RPSM (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Will respond when I have had time to think this through. RPSM (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC) To clarify, the editor Wvs claimed that jewish and muslim slaughter is not banned in Sweden, it just so happens that it does not fit in with existing laws. This argument and response was already worked out before legislation passed somewhere or other in Religious Freedom Lewin et al. I do not have detailed info on Norway. It was also used recently in a couple of Swedish newspapers. More later RPSM (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the definitive article on the ritual slaughter debates in Norway, Sweden and Denmark:

[2] RPSM (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ritual slaughter, etc. Shehitah.

This is from Metcalf's article:

31.^ "The ad hoc Riksdag committee appointed to consider von Möller's bill (1909) presented, as part of its report, a statement given to the Swedish government in 1889 by the National Board of Medicine calling the government's attention to the uproar over shechita that had led to so much agitation in Germany and Austria. The board pointed out that the campaigns against shechita in those countries had been initiated by animal protection societies, but had waraned that they had been continued and pursued wth great vigour by antisemites. Moreover, it had also said that only Switzerland and the Kingdom of Saxony had adopted legislation requiring stunning before slaughter, and it had recommended that any such slegislation adopted in Sweden be accompoanied by an exemption for shechita." Metcalf p 40

The National Board of Medicine knew and reported in 1909 that antisemites had taken up the cause. Also see Krauthammer's doctoral dissertation. [3]

Here is a Japanese who has read Krauthammer:[4] The first kanton to ban shehitah was Aargau, the Second was St.Gallen. [5] Here is a bit farther into the book: [6]

Another essay: Stunning Bodies: Animal Slaughter, Judaism, and the Meaning of Humanity in Imperial Germany av Dorothee Brantz (2002) RPSM (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but your message to me on my talk page is visible in the history but not on the talk page. How did you do this? RPSM (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All your comments are really answered in the literature. What I was trying to do here was to point you to the central items that would provide answers. There is one other important item.

Åsa Nilsson & Ingvar Svanberg, Religiös slakt pp. 70–96 in: Religionsfrihet i Sverige: Om möjligheten att leva som troende red. Pia Karlsson & Ingvar Svanberg (red.) Karlsson Minganti, Pia, 1967- (redaktör/utgivare) [7] It turns up on the used textbook market occassionally if you search. Bio for Pia Karlsson [8] RPSM (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of creating a difficult technical problem by banning something without specifically referring to it is referred to in Religious Freedom: The Right to Practise Shehitah. "If the Jews want to practise shehitah, they are welcome to do so, as long as they stun the animals first." (I am quoting from memory)

And in the Swedish Riksdag, it was specifically mentioned (by a man who was proud to call himself an antisemite) as a technique to put the lid on any subsequent discussion. (Previously, a six month prison sentence had been suggested for cruelty to animals) but the new wording followed the Swiss, German and Norwegian law. "Now it will be impossible to bring the matter up at the police station and in the courts." (not, as long as there was no Religious Freedom Section in a European Convention for Human Rights.)

The debate in the newspapers today is a) It is not banned - there is no ban b)Oh, yes it is banned. a) i)The president of the Swedish Veterinary Association and editor of the Swedish Veterinary Magazine, Beck-Fries ii) The president of the Swedish umbrella organisation for animal protection organisations iii)The CEO of a large company producing (stunned) Halal meat. Opposing them is b) a freelance journalist.

Also opinion a) claims "There never was any antisemitic campaign." b) says "Oh yes there was."

a) [9]DN debatt

b) [10]DN debatt

RPSM (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference/source

1) Per Ole Johansen Oss selv nærmest. Norge og jødene 1914-1943. (Korstoget mot schæchtningen ss.62-68) The whole book is on the web. Regards, RPSM (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) The Most Cruel Cut of All? The Campaign Against Jewish Ritual Slaughter in Fin-de-Siècle Switzerland and Germany ($25 to view) RPSM (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

´The kosher slaughtering debates

Found a recent paper here: Anti-Semitism without Hatred? The Animal Protection Movement and the Semantics of Kosher Slaughter in Norway 1895-1913 Regards, RPSM (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosher Slaughtering Debates

On the Talk Page of the article: Shechita [11]] I have outlined a summary of my reading on the subject in case you might be interested.

Hereis a page from Sander Gilman's Kafka, the Jewish Patient. He has a chapter on the shehitah debates as a background to Kafka's short story. Best. RPSM (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello Sparviere, while we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I've reverted you. It was unsourced, but also it appears to have been copied from [12] or [13] which is prohibited by our copyright policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viking etymology

I can't disagree that the existing section needs a lot of improvement, but adding unsourced material, some of which seems original research, isn't an improvement. For instance, what is the source of "This view is supported by a passage in the Saga of Harald Fairhair"? That requires a source meeting WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. I'm guessing you haven't read WP:NOR. There must be good sources and I wouldn't be surprised if a complete rewrite is required. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Molde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rauma (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) 12:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon Sigurdsson

I saw your recent edits to Haakon Sigurdsson. I assume you changed "Greyhide" to "Greycloak" because it's a better translation. I just wanted to point out to you that there is a caption under an illustration that still has "Greyhide". Perhaps that should be changed, too. CorinneSD (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tomte, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Norse, Germanic and Nixie. 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) 09:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boknafisk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian. 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) 09:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sparviere. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sparviere. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Molde3.jpg

The file File:Molde3.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Molde3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Molde3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]