Talk:Benedicta of Bjelbo

Name of article & in lede

It is my firm belief that a person's name, at the start of a biographic article about that person, is supposed to match the article's name. The article was moved recently to avoid irrelevant Danish and undue emphasis on phonetically obstructive Swedish name versions. They should not be returned again, in bold lettering, as if that move had not taken place. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is in fact you who are "edit-warring" here, not me (as you accuse me of doing in your edit). This is the fact: this woman's formal name was Benedicta, but she was always called and referred to as Bengta. Bengta is thereby to be referred to as the name she is called by and known by. In Wikipedia, it is normal to write thus: (Formal name) "(Nick name/name under which a person is known)" in the lead. This should be no expedition. With your version, the reader will get the impression, that Benedicta was not her real formal name at all, merely the translation of her formal name Bengta. Your version therefore gives misinformation, even if it is not the intent. However, let me be frank. I will leave this as you wish: not because your are right, but because I rather not get involved in a conflict with you because of earlier experiences of such conflicts. I know it is tiring and nothing else. One example of your behavior is that you accuse me of edit warring when it is rather you who are engaging in such. Which is, I could ad, not very constructive for Wikipedia, were facts should be important, not fear for getting involved in tiring conflicts. Do as you wish whether you are right of wrong. I wish to have nothing to do with any article in which you also have an interest. I shall therefore unwatch this article and let you have your way with it regardless what it would led to. Have a good day.--Aciram (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think what you find tiring primarily is the fact that you tend to get personal and often bring up past history and other irrelevant angles. I didn't mention you at all here. Try not getting personal but merely sticking to the subject at hand! You will probably enjoy your good work for WP much more, especially when you deal with other users who disagree with you. I've tried to practice that policy myself as well as I can, and it has helped me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, to speak frankly once again; one need only to have a look on your discussion page and your contribution history, both here and at Swedish language Wikipedia, and compare them to mine, to see which one of us who would have best use of your advice and the good quality of self knowledge. As for my accusation that you have accused me of edit-warring, you need only to have a good look at your edit history of this article. Personally, I will thank you for your advice by giving you an advice of my own; good self judgement is a very useful thing when criticizing others - people tend not to take criticism seriously when coming from some one doing the same thing they criticize. Rather, it tend to look ridiculous instead. Thank you for your advice. I trust you receive mine with the very same consideration. --Aciram (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)