File talk:Hovgarden runsten 2008a.JPG

King mentioned...

... in image description and WP articles about stone. Pls do not remove relevant categories. EmilEikS (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I copied the discussion below to this page, just to show that there has actually been a discussion about this, despite your recent comment. I see that you removed the Category:Cenotaphs of Swedish royalty. That category was my main objection and I will not remove the other two.--Zejo (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You removed it, I just forgot to put it back. This is a cenotaph in every sense of the English meaning of the word. I don't know if it's appropriate that you move a text in Swedish here (below) from your talk page. Think that might help us get consensus? Shall I translate the wholw thing? But at least the description of a cenotaph (in English) is in there in English. EmilEikS (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is stipulated anywhere that a discussion has to be in English.--Zejo (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting you Zejo (above): "I will not remove the other two." But you just did (unless someone else is using your handle)!!! Revenge or neutral editing? I have really tried to discuss this with you civilly. Now you are about to be reported for edit warring and misconduct to RfC. I suggest you revert what you just did. I will do it anyway and keep insisting you discuss this here, in English, before you keep changing things around avery which way. EmilEikS (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was happy for a moment, because I thought we had reached a (silent) compromise. Since this was wrong, I feel quite free to remove the categories I think are irrelevant. Commons is a multilingual project, so a discussion in Swedish is just as valid as one in english. --Zejo (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are admitting here that you have resorted to personal revenge, on a personal whim, certainly not neutral and constructive work for the benefit of this project. Users get blocked for such behavior (if it gets really bad they can be blocked on all WM projects). I find myself repeating things a lot when we discuss: English is the language in which discussions must take place on Commons (except user pages) so that all users may participate. Rather obvious, besides being a definite rule here. EmilEikS (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what this has to do with personal revenge? I removed the categories, because I find them irrelevant. That is no more personal than it is for you to put them back.--Zejo (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have replied elsewhere on the 3 pages where have been discussing and now seem to be less at odds. Look, dear sir or madam, this runestone (only this one, as far as I know) is a cenotaph in the English connotation. Can't we stop bickering about this image and category (have you seen all the other nice work I have tried to do with them?) and move on to bigger (spirited) and better and much more enjoyable things? Asked sincerely. RSVP (OSA) not necessary. EmilEikS (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So, just the fact that a person is mentioned in the text makes it a cenotaph? --Zejo (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not - runestones are not cenotaphs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cenotaph (in English as per WP): "a monument erected in honor of a person or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere". Reinstated category again. Please stop trolling about this now! EmilEikS (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rune stones are neither grave markers nor en:cenotaphs. That word means "empty grave" - not "monument mentioning a deceased person" in general. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing, as usual, without even reading the material you are trying to quote. Same attitude as here and many other places. Your interpretation is the Swedish meaning of kenotaf not the Engish meaning of cenotaph, which I quoted verbatim above. I have also explained this several times to Zejo as you should have noted. EmilEikS (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cenotaph is from Greek. Anyway, this runestone does not even mention anybody dead. All people with their names on it are mentioned as living. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Dead" = the Swedish connotation. You are continuing to ignore the wider English meaning of cenotaph which includes monuments that do not mention death. EmilEikS (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A cenotaph as a monument to someone who is still alive?? You cannot be serious. As a pointer: "remains" means "kvarlevor" in Swedish... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Alive"? - I have no idea what you are going on and on about. No need to give me any pointers about Swedish Mr. K (I would certainly never be so rude as to give you any about Dutch). But if we can agree that king Hacon Red's "remains are elsewhere" (not under the rune stone that has been interpreted to have his name on it), then the discussion has become moot, I believe. EmilEikS (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to criticize your work here too, and agree with mr. Kuiper. The presumed king may very well have been alive when the inscription was made. There is nothing in the text saying that he wasn't. --Zejo (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just don't stalk me just to pick fights, please, like PK does, like here! Can we agree that King Hacon is dead now, that his remains are not buried under the stone, and that it became a cenotaph (in English) when he did die? Or shall we go on and on and on and on about this forever? EmilEikS (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't stalk you, we just seem to have the same interests sometimes, but seldom the same views I'm afraid. Do you mean that something can become a cenotaph? I have to ask you if there any other examples of that? --Zejo (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, every monument raised to someone during his/her lifetime becomes a cenotaph when those people die, unless they are buried under them. The English definition (which I now have quoted three times - phew!) is very clear. EmilEikS (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the text saying that the stone was raised in honour of Håkon. It seems more like he himself requested it to be raised. --Zejo (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So what, it is still a "monument mentioning him" = cenotaph in English. Fourth quote now! Can we work on something else? Please? EmilEikS (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The English definition is (now I'm quoting you EmilEikS) "a monument erected in honor of a person or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere". Above I stated: "there is nothing in the text saying that the stone was raised in honour of Håkon". Your response was "So what". Is it another definition you are referring to now? Please clarify. --Zejo (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this now! Here - for the fifth time (!!!) is the quote: "a monument erected in honor of a person or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere". This monument was obviously erected in honor of whatever people are mentioned in the runic text on it, othwerwisw they would not be mentioned there. That's what rune stones were for. King Hacon is considered to be one of them. This is getting so tiresome now. Please! I beg you, let's do something else! EmilEikS (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, that is why I'm not stopping. Why should I? It is certainly not true that runestones are erected "in honour" of everybody mentioned in them. You have to read the text to find out. In this case Tolir and Gylla say that they made is as a menorial of themselves. Besides, "a monument erected in honor of a person or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere" to me definitely implies that the "remains are elsewhere" when "a monument" is "erected". Håkon was probably alive at the time, so his "remains" were nowhere. You will not convince by begging me to stop. --Zejo (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

EmilEiks can get very very emotional when it comes to Royalty Long Dead... Anyway, his statement "every monument raised to someone during his/her lifetime becomes a cenotaph when those people die, unless they are buried under them" is hilarious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No essential comment on Kuiper's personal jeering, just his usual misconduct. Very creepy though that he writes about me as if he knows me personally (outside of WP). That familiarity is very very offensive. This is a cenotaph. Both of you are wrong, because you do not (want to) understand the English-language meaning of the word. We'll have to wait for neutral input or go to an RfC more officially. EmilEikS (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on this file. The file info was recently updated to reflect even more clearly the cenotaph catagorization. It should no longer be tampered with by frivlous editing.. 217.209.96.70 09:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The ip-number is either EmilEiks continuing his idiosyncratic edit war, or a meatpuppet of his. Nobody else would call an insciption like "This was built during the reign of king so-and-so XXVII" a cenotaph. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Håkanstenen och kungahögar (Copied from User talk:Zejo)

Jag återställer med bästa välmening kategoriseringen av gravhögarna och Håkansstenen som kungliga gravar resp monument och ber dig svara på deras diskussionssidor om du är missnöjd med det. Fast man inte vet med säkerhet vilka personer som ligger i högarna är nog en stor majoritet forskare och historiker överens om att högarna rör sig om kungliga gravar och (exempelvis Lars O. Lagerqvist) att Håkansstenen är vår första inhemska regentkälla. mvh EmilEikS (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Angående Category:Burial mounds in Sweden: Anser du att alla svenska gravhögar per definition är resta över svenska kungligheter? Angående File:Hovgarden runsten 2008a.JPG: Bilden föreställer en runsten och ingenting annat. Det är heller inget cenotafium (minnesgravvård). --Zejo (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hej igen Zejo!

Fråga 1: "alla svenska gravhögar per definition är resta över svenska kungligheter" nej det har jag aldrig påstått - se diskussionssidan där och bidra gärna om du vill! Jag anser absolut ingenting, går i mina uppfattningar bara efter vad experter har publicerat.

Fråga 2: Jag stödjer min uppfattning på ett stort antal experters utlåtanden om texten på stenen. Se bland andra Lagerqvist & Åberg i "Litet Lexikon över Sveriges Regenter" s. 11 samt [detta] på sv WP. Kenotaf på svenska har en snävare betydelse (som skengrav endast) än engelskans cenotaf - se här.

mvh EmilEikS (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I så fall ska inte Category:Burial mounds in Sweden ligga under Category:Graves of Swedish Royalty. Du får placera in bilderna av de gravhögar som säkert innehåller svenska kungligheter i denna kategori separat. Det torde vara få.

2. Om man läser texten på stenen kan den inte heller enligt den vidare engelska definitionen sägas vara en "cenotaph of Swedish royalty". De övriga två kategorierna tycker jag har en väldigt svag koppling till vad bilden faktiskt föreställer. --Zejo (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Vad menar du med "ska" och "får" - vill du tvinga fram din åsikt? Puckla på mig den med klubba liksom? Jag bara frågar, förvånad som jag blir att du tar i så hårt här. Det enda vi vet "säkert" du och jag, i vår ej så utopiskt säkerställningsbara värld, och det av experterna, är att de flesta högarna anses ha rests som gravar och över kungligheter i engelskans mening av "royalty" - det får du - ska du - kan du väl nöja dig med? Om några bilder slinker med (bland den majoriteten) på högar som har tömts/plundrats eller innehåller icke-kungliga stoft (fast vi inget vet), så brukar sådant gå bra på Commons för den större nyttans skull. Vi vet ju inte säkert, som du själv skriver. Behöver jag citera ur den engelska artikeln Cenotaph (som överensstämmer med mina 5 ordböcker och Encyclopaedia Britannica) - "a monument erected in honor of a person or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere" eller kunde du ha varit vänlig och läst texten själv? Jag tog fram den för din skull. Stenens text har tolkats enligt uppgifterna jag sände dig om den. Läste du dem? Det kanske inte är så viktigt, gode Zejo, vad du tycker om det här (om du ursäktar att jag skriver så), utan vad experterna har kommit fram till och publicerat i vederhäftiga källor, bland vilka du fått 2 goda av mig här ovan. Du vet ju inte alls "vad bilden faktiskt föreställer". Inte jag heller. Vi får lita på andras tolkningar, om de är sakliga och väl underbyggda. EmilEikS (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Det kanske kunde vara en bra idé att skapa en ny kategori Category:Burial mounds of Swedish royalty som en underkategori till Category:Burial mounds in Sweden och Category:Graves of Swedish Royalty. Där kan man placera de högar som innehåller kungligheter. Vad gäller texten på stenen kan jag inte se att den innehåller någon hyllning till den förmodade kung Håkon. Beträffande bilden, vet vi att den föreställer en runsten, stående vid Hovgården på Adelsö.--Zejo (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jag får hänvisa dig för tredje gången, dock vänligen igen, till experternas tolkning av runstenens text. Det finns ingen saklig anledning att ignorera den i detta sammanhang. Och så fär jag upprepa (se även diskussionssidan), vänligen igen, angående din principiellt goda idé, att jag inte tror vi kan genomföra något sådant eftersom vi inte vet med säkerhet vem som ligger i varje hög, eller i någon hög för den delen, helt säkert. Det finns endast sakliga akademiskt underbyggda konstateranden om gravarten och framlidna samhällsrangen av begravda stoft, och dessa pekar i stort sett enhälligt i den riktningen jag försökt gå här, nämligen att det är säkrast att sortera alla dessa stora högar i de kategorier som en svensk IP och jag skapat och utvecklat i veckan. Jag hoppas du sett tillägget i texten på sidan Category:Graves of Swedish Royalty som kom till tack vare dina inlägg. mvh EmilEikS (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)