Country creation lists Yeah that s a quandry It should be one list No doubt about that But what should it be labeled Independence doesn t quite work since I know that in the case of Egypt it has been non independent on and off over time But then is it a State I dunno I would recommend combining everything into one list and then try to build a consensus for the name Otherwise yes the countries listed are almost the exact same It s redundant Ingrid Ragvaldsdotter and Jarl Knut Haakonsson Hello Unless I am mistaken you have written on Norwegian medieval topics before I was wondering if I could direct your attention to the discussion pages of the two articles Jarl Knut Haakonsson and Ingrid Ragvaldsdotter and see if you have any opinions on the question of moving them to Knut Haakonsson and Ingrid Ragnvaldsdotter Thank you Answered on those pages Shetland I popped some figures on the talk page to show you why the claim you are inserting doesn t make sense Nearest railway station to Shetland Sorry but you ve been taken in by an urban myth just as that webpage has It is approx 220 miles from Shetland to Bergen but it is only approx 130 miles to the railway station at Thurso Thurso railway station on the Scottish mainland I m going to revert your edit thanks I prefer to keep discussions about particular articles on the talk page of that article I have answered there Sorry I gather from your last post at Talk Shetland you were put out by being corrected on the Lerwick error I want to say that it was certainly not my intention to offend you Thank you Correcting mistakes is of course important and I am not put out by being corrected But the manor by which it its done matters a great deal espeshially when we are limited to communicate by writing Calling well sourced posts rubbish and making jokes on how silly a mistake this was to make is not encouraging It might pass better among a group of friends face to face but should be avoided here I see you were only enticed into making a small comment and I get the impression you know what I m trying to say here already It really is nt a big deal or problem My other point is that the problem wasn t me posting it the problem is that a reputable reference site ment to inform Brits and Norwegians on such things have gotten it wrong Civility is really important on a project like this which is why I apologised above for any upset you suffered for your well meaning attempt to improve the encyclopedia I would make two observations here 1 While verifiability is our standard here it s obviously even more important to be accurate Even apparently respectable sources can be wrong and as I pointed out on the talk page this is the organisation that produced the Dodgy Dossier here 2 You perhaps didn t help the situation by reverting our attempts to correct you rather than raising it in talk Anyway I do understand why you were put out and I hope no lasting ill feeling will derive from this incident Best wishes 1 Obviously but I don t suspect you make a habit of questioning such sources as hard as others I would call the British Foreign Office a straight forward respectable source even though some parts of that organisation have made some widely publicised mistakes 2 Perhaps I normally only revert once in cases like this the removing editor referred to himself believing it to be a myth when I had read it in a reputable source and then take it to the talk page but then the following edit summary was no mention of that on the ref you provided I knew that to be completely false and felt justified in making a second revert I would however have taken it to the talk page had you not beaten me to it When a possible mistake is backed up by a strong source maybe all parties share the obligation to take it to the talk page early maybe even before it is removed the first time I don t harbour grudges and I don t think any are justified here Cheers