Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Draft:Dano-Mughal War (1642-1698), may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely not a minor edit. Neither are your other edits. What do you mean by marking them as minor? Makes your intentions look very questionable. Do you really not know what a minor edit is? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. Please read our guideline! Any edit that changes content in the slightest way is not minor. The relevance is that many editors do not look at the minor edits of other users, such as typos, punctuation, commas, capital leters, etc. Thus we can get away with changing article content that way, and that's considered cheating. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, i used the automatic citation genorator to make the source, which gave a slightly wrong one. The book i used is called Negotiating the North; Meeting-Places in the Middle Ages in the North Sea Zone. And at page 117, it states " On New Year’s Day 1443 he was crowned in Ribe Cathedral and proclaimed as Denmark’s archirex (Lat.) or ‘Arch King’" Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing there about "full title" or "by the grace of God" or the specific term "archirex of Denmark" used in a formal style. Nor do I see anything about the unsourced, trivial, undue weight, excessive detail of "King of Sweden and Norway, the Wends and the Goths, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria." What part of the current content, sourced to da:Kurt Villads Jensen and da:Michael Bregnsbo is wrong? DrKay (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other realms and titles of his style were on the article beforehand, I simply changed king of Denmark to archirex of Denmark acording the first source. I can put the archirex title and explain it under his full title, if that is more correct. But he still was infact Denmark's arhirex and not also the other realms archirex, acording to my second source. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're using an incomprehensible anachronism like archirex of Denmark (one word in Latin, unknown in English, plus two words in English) shows us that you will not or cannot understand how the English language is (to be) used on English Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope the matter has now been settled once and for all (on the article's talk page), and that you will take the advice we've given you about sources and language into account in your future work. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arcicle is OK now. Other than that, we should not mix languages. However, even if a translation seems obvious it should not be used in a Wikipedia article without a source. I trust you have understood that now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Personal union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duchy of Estonia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I'm currently working on some pages regarding Dano-Hanseatic relations, along with some of the wars they fought. You appear to be into in this topic and I was curious if you could potentially review some of my articles to check for accuracy?
I also edited the page on Denmark-Norway as well, if you want to review that one as well.
Also, if you find any major conflicts between Denmark and the Hansa, if it fits, perhaps you could link it to the Danish-Hanseatic Rivalry page? Thanks! Gankbank789 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i love the new article and it had really needed its own wikipedia page. I'll review the Danish-Hanseatic Rivalry, the Danish-Hanseatic War (1361-1370) and also the edit on Denmark-Norway tommorow. But keep up the good work. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by The Herald were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Conquest of Gotland (1676) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Tinkaer1991!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by The Herald were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Crown Prince Frederik Land and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Relativity was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Except for the infobox, your submission is blank. Please add content to it.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hello. I dont quite understand what i did wrong? Can you please elaborate, and tell me how to fix the issue? For now i have written af short describtion in the article, if it is that you wanted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Broc was:
Please check out Help:Shortened footnotes: you need to add a full reference to the books you cite with shortened footnotes. At the moment, it is impossible to know which books you used to write this page.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dano-Dutch War and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Cattle War, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi, I accepted your article Cattle War for mainspace. I tagged some issues in the article (I couldn't understand a couple sentences, and one of the cited book needs a specific page reference added), it would be great if you could fix them. Thanks a lot and happy editing! Broc (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The e-book is from Google Books, which only gives a small section visable for the viewer. It also doesnt give the accual page number. But from the link connected to the reference, i counted the pages to be 12 and 13. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dano-Dutch War, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If there is no Norwegain participation in the battle, it should not say "Dano-Norwegain victory" remeber the term Denmark-Norway did'nt exist when Denmark and Norway was in a union and should not be considered an arguement for calling it a "Dano-Norwegain victory" Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its the term used now? It’s also used in multiple battles and wars which had no danish interference. And it used to be called the “Twin Realms”, but Denmark-Norway is now the correct way historians refer to the union. Same goes with Dano-Norwegian. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, even though the nation is now reffered to as Denmark-Norway, it does not mean norwegians participaterd in every confrontation, the danish participated in. If Norwegians are not mentioned in the article, they should not be included in the result same goes for Danes Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats like saying a Soviet victory should be Georgian or Armenian victories if they were the ones fighting, doesnt make any sense, right? Its the nation of Denmark-Norway, which is refered to with the term «Dano-Norwegian». Seems like you just have bias GusGusBrus (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the difference is not Soviet is not a nationality, its a form of government. Again the protocol for this is that nothing that is not said in the article should be included in the infobox, without a source. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still my point stands, do you not have a source Denmark-Norway fought in those battles? Your arguments are empty since you think Im talking about Norwegians or Danes specifically fighting in said battle, but Im just saying you are changing it to a wrong term, which you are GusGusBrus (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the nation is now reffered to as denmark-norway, doesnt mean all people who lived there were "dano-norwegains" if the article only mentions danes and not norwegains, participating in the batle, the victory should be "Danish" and not "dano-norwegian". Again stop arguing when the official manual agrees Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dano-Norwegian army/navy consisted of both Danes and Norwegians, while often referred to as Danish in old documents, doesnt change the fact that there is little to no possibility that there weren’t any Norwegians fighting. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again they may have been norwegaisn fighting, but if that is not mentioned in the source, you cannot include it in the results. So if you are really desperate, find a source stating norwegains directly partecipated in the battle. Write it in the article. And then you can change the result Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nation of Denmark-Norway claimed victory with an army/navy which consisted both of Norwegians and Danes, but was usually referred to as Danish, since it was under the danish crown. Either you don’t know much about this subject or you are very arrogant. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you are now making claims that is unsourced. So i would like a source for your statement. Also even if true, there would still be needed a source for teh specific participation of Norwegians in the battle, No one should read between the lines. I am reversing your edits, where norwegians arent mentioned as particiåating in the battle, That is per Help:Infobox, if you disagree, find a source that supports your opinion. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am not going to change every battle, im only reversing the ones you did. If you want to do the same with Norwegian battles, do that yourself Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Firstly, please dont reverse my edits, without a consensus, just because i dont answer in 4 days should not give a casus beli to revert my changes (See:Wikipedia:There is no deadline).
For the issue, denonyms should not be the authority of the text in the result, in these cases writing "Dano-Norwegain victory" to a battle not involving Norwegains is highly misleading, as for the official wikipedia protocol, the infoboxes should only and always include material "Already cited elsewhere in the article" (See:Help:Infobox)
If you cant provide sources for your claim, nor accept the official protocol and guideline, then you should highly question your reason for even contributing to this encyclopedia...
Thats like calling a british victory for Scottish or Welsh victory, you are just using the wrong demonyms as shown by Denmark-Norways Wikipedia page. The demonyms are supposed to show the result for the victorious nation who won. Seeming as Denmark-Norway was one nation at that time and the Dano-Norwegian army consisted both of Norwegians and Danes there wouldnt be any reason to why it would be needed to be mentioned. Just admit your wrong, and stop spreading your personal bias.
Firstly please dont use any ad hominem against me (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) as this is the official guidelines, so please let's keep this mature. Also i dont see how this fits any bias? My viewpoint goes for all battles, Danish, Norwegain or anything else.
Secondly your comparison doesnt make sense, as i see it? British is an accual identity of a geographical area (Britian), while the term Dano-Norwegain, has never been used as such. Dano-Norwegain is at most a language for the Danish speaking population of Norway, and was never used as a national identity except in rare occasions by those.
As per the guidelines the infobox should include material already cited elsewhere in the article, until that is the case, your point cant be implemented.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
@Tinkaer1991, just wanted to mention a few things that preceded me accepting this review:
Please remember to put full stops and correct punctuation on the sentences, I am assuming you are not a native English speaker but I had to fix this on quite numerous occasions so keep that in mind.
You don't need to link everything, most things can be assumed per WP:OL.
I have marked some areas as needing clarification or citation. More importantly, the article is currently marked as an orphan. Please try to address this when you can.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I have a picture for the “cattle war” article, but I can’t seem to upload it. Can you help me? Or just upload the picture? It’s called: VAUPELL(1870) p2.087, Motiv zum Jahr 1750 E4t5s.new (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for asking. I have now uploaded the image on the page. You are free to replace it or rewrite the describtion.
PS, i have noticed your contributions on List of wars involving Denmark, please remember that when you add another war, you should also correct the number of wins/losses/inconclusive at the top of the page.
Hi, can you edit this account's userpage with your main account in order to prove you own this account and that this is not an impostor? Thanks, Prodraxis(talk)00:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you did that just now. Thanks for doing this and if you need help with anything else feel free to ask me anytime. Best, Prodraxis(talk)16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question on how to create templates? When i create a new template i can only figure out to to that on AfC drafts, which seems to be wrong. Where do i create new templates? - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can directly create new templates by placing "Template:" in front of the title of the template you want to create and then entering wikitext as necessary. Regards, Prodraxis(talk)16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are Autoconfirmed, you should be able to directly create templates (not through AfC) in the template namespace (e.g. if I want to create a template titled "MyTemplate" I would go to Template:MyTemplate and enter in wikitext). Is the title of your template listed on the local MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or the the global title blacklist? The title blacklist could prevent pages from created even by autoconfirmed users, and it is possible that the blacklist is interfering with your ability to create a template even if you did nothing wrong. Prodraxis(talk)17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think my template is blacklisted, just that i didnt know where to create it. But i think you have made me understand it now, so much thank you! Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disturb, but I noticed on your draft on the Danish intervention in the Thirty Years War, you added Sweden to the Danish side, can you explain how Sweden was involved, or are you counting the Siege of Stralsund (1628) as Swedish participation?
Sweden and Denmark were official allies and sweden participated, in yes, the Siege of Stralsund. Right now, im not done with the infobox and will probably make a note staking when sweden was apart of the war Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loss of the St. Jacob, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.
Since we were being uncivil in the last one I created a new one here, mainly about Draft:Battle of West Kay. Your sources say the ships were a part of the Dano-Norwegian fleet/navy, and that the nation who claimed victory was Denmark-Norway who uses the demonym Dano-Norwegian. (Not to be confused with the language Dano-Norwegian) We have talked about this off-site where you have stated that you would fulfill my request where I asked for a source you said you had when I asked for a source specifically saying that there was only Danes fighting in this battle, as there is no reason to believe so because the sources mentioned it being apart of a unified fleet/navy between the two nations of the Dano-Norwegian realm. Which needs to be specifically mentioned in the sources. GusGusBrus (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you recall your source request? Also what evidence do you have that the demonym of Denmark-Norway was Dano-Norwegian? In my understanding, Dano-Norwegian refers to things shared or in common with the two nations during their real union, and is generally used in the context of Norwegians or Danish-born Norwegians in service or allegiance to their king. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it’s used and refered to in the sources multiple times as «Dansk-Norsk» (In Norwegian and Danish sources), «Dano-Norwegian» or «Danish-Norwegian». Also used commonly in the Denmark-Norway article where it even directly states thats the demonym. Either way even if you have the wrong interpretation of the term, its still says in the sources about the ships that they were in the shared fleet between the two union kingdoms. GusGusBrus (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to confuse me?
What was "used and refered to in the sources multiple times as «Dansk-Norsk» (In Norwegian and Danish sources), «Dano-Norwegian» or «Danish-Norwegian»."?
Also the Denmark-Norway article doesn't provide any references on it being the actual demonym of the nation?
And, yes, ofcourse the ships Lougen and Den Aarvaagne were apart of the Danish-Norwegian navy? What are your points, and what reliable sources do you have for Dano-Norwegian being the demonym of the whole realm? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the first question I’m mainly talking about the navy/fleet and how the ships are described.
Secondly, it has its own section in the infobox. (Denmark-Norway)
Thirdly, exactly my point? The Dano-Norwegian navy and nation fought and claimed victory?
Lastly I don’t have an exact source on that, except for that being used the most commonly in the sources. Which seems like the most reasonable to use since that’s what’s in the sources (?) GusGusBrus (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples of Lougen and Den Aarvaagne being described as Dano-Norwegian in the sources of the article, if that is what you are claiming? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad if I explained that wrongly, I meant they were described to be apart of the Dano-Norwegian fleet, I of course don’t disagree that the ships were Danish produced. GusGusBrus (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course they were apart of the Dano-Norwegian fleet, though that does not make them Dano-Norwegian? The reason the Dano-Norwegian navy is called so, is because it was shared between the two kingdoms. Calling a victory "Dano-Norwegian" merely because the vessels in combat was apart of a navy shared by the kingdoms, I consider vague. Of course it should be considered Dani-Norwegian if there was an actual Norwegian presence in the battle, which in my understanding and the sources used in the article doesn't seem to be the case. Thereby it would also be misleading to include such ethnicity in the infobox. In contrast inboxes are supposed to be clear and simply and mentioned things already said in the article, which I see your proposal as a break off. Hope this helps, best regards. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt "shared" between the two kingdoms, since the two kingdoms were under one king and nation. The fleet consisted both of Norwegians and Danes and should be therefore be included in the result. (Also it was the Nation of these two unified kingdoms which claimed victory) And as sources and even the article for Denmark-Norway either uses the demonym or states that it was the demonym used for the nation, i dont see any reason why this should be an exception? Wouldnt really matter which of the two kingdoms produced the ship? The nation and people fighting would still be the ones to claim victory, which were Dano-Norwegian soldiers fighting for the nation of Denmark-Norway, for Dano-Norwegian sovereignity.
This is not about what nation "produced" the ship? The ships are described as Danish in the sources and the commander was Danish. There may likely be Norwegian participation in the battle, but since that is not mentioned, it should not be included. This is how wikipedia operates.
Also the Dano-Norwegian navy was indeed shared? The navy did not have a Norwegian and Danish branch, as the armies of the nation did. Rather the navy was shared between the two Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, yet that should not be an excuse to include Norwegian in the infobox, if not mentioned in the article. Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious that a shared fleet with both Norwegians and Danes serving and under both kingdoms is enough information to include Norwegian participation? You would need a source which stated that it was only Danes to deny that, even if the commander and ship was Danish. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not. If only "Danish" is mentioned and described in the article and supporting sources, then only Danish should be described in the infobox. Seems pretty simple?
Looking at our current and previous discussions, I don't see us coming to an agreement. If you want this proposal to go further, it would be a good idea to ask a third party. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ship and commander is mentioned to be Danish, although you are completely ignoring the nation which participated and that it was the Dano-Norwegian fleet who fought with both Danes and Norwegians in service? GusGusBrus (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your RFC tag. That’s not to say an RFC is inappropriate, but please consider WP:RFCBEFORE before opening a new one. Ideally you should have a clear, simple and neutral question (eg, “should X be Y?”), and it should be posted to an appropriate forum, or at least to its own new section or subsection. There, you can certainly link to this and other discussions (eg, “see P and Q for previous discussion”). Once that neutral forum has been created, you can each present your POVs in response to the question, with evidence or whatever you like. In short, it’s called a request for comment, but it’s a little more formal than that, and it’s just more respectful to uninvolved editors (like me) if you lead us into the debate with a clear goal, rather than expecting people to just read through all your previous comments to catch up.
Prior to, or instead of an RFC, you may consider posting to relevant Wikiprojects where knowledgeable and interested editors may be able to weigh in (you might just post a new section on the Wikiproject talk page notifying editors of this discussion). If you only need a third opinion from a non-expert to settle a disagreement, WP:3O may be of help (there is guidance there on how to request). Best of luck — HTGS (talk)08:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of West Kay, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:MyTemplate, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi Tinkaer1991. Thank you for your work on Attack in Hooghly. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I have a simple question, could you name a single battle Cnut fought against the Norwegians he “conquered”? I’m guessing there are some since you made an article calling it a conquest, but I couldn’t find any. GusGusBrus (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no seemingly battles in this invasion, yet that does not question its credibility as a conquest. Multipel sources describe it as such. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fit the definition of a conquest? Also how does it fit the definition of Cnuts conquest when it was the Norwegian chieftains that actually fought Olaf? Also in the source I gave you off site it is clearly said he subjected Norway without the Sword, so even though he came with a big army it wasn’t Cnut’s military force which eventually got him the throne of Norway. Wouldn’t it therefore not fit the definition of a conquest? GusGusBrus (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to go in detail with this. Multiple sources, which can also be found in the article, describe it as a conquest and invasion. Therefore it’s justifiable for me to write it as such. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if you are avoiding explaining how it fits the definition? You shouldnt write that it was a conquest if you can’t even explain how it was a conquest, or even how it fits the definition of one. GusGusBrus (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i can still write it as a conquest, when the sources agree with me. In what Wikipedia guidelines am i obligated to define each word, and Connect it to the topic? As Long as the sources calls it a conquest, i’m free to do so too. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. But that is besides the point. If it’s mentioned as a conquest by scholarly sources, then i Can mention it as such too. Glad i could help. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thanks for creating this article. You can help with categorizing the article and if possible help with the map location.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SafariScribe}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Per Wikipedia policy, drafts or copies of mainspace articles in userspace or draftspace should not have categories. You have recently created a lot things in your userspace violating that. I have fixed some of them by removing the categories. Just wanted to let you know for the future. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Christian75 (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating article but deserves a bigger lede? thanks.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello, Tinkaer1991. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Danish presence in Ceylon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Speedy deletion nomination of Ove Gjedde's Expedition
Hello Tinkaer1991,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ove Gjedde's Expedition for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Ove Gjedde's Expedition to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
(I didn't really mean to leave this message while marking the redirect for deletion, since this was not a remotely controversial deletion. But apparently that's what the page curation tool always does.) SilverLocust💬03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, Tinkaer1991. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Siege of Prinzenstein, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Tinkaer1991. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:African theatre of the Second Northern War, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
yes, the source that alledgedly used Dano-Norwegian, did not use it. So i have removed that citation, and now it follows per article again. This was a wrong citiation. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"At the "Battle of Fugleklippen," as the event has since been called, the outcome was otherwise fortunate for Denmark-Norway." (Translated from Danish) is the mention i found which i referred to. GusGusBrus (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seperates Danish and Norwegian when talking about ships but it states that Denmark-Norway was the victorious nation so i dont get where you are getting "Danish" from, shouldnt the battle be a "Dano-Norwegian" victory because it was a victory won by Denmark-Norway? They were in a real union so theres no seperating them except for nationality of individual ships, not the demonym used to refer to the nation. GusGusBrus (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This city doesnt mention any denonym, except for "Danish" on the ships. Where i get Danish from is all the other sources mentioning this battle. Also, in naval battles like this, where armies are rarely mentioned, i only see it appropriate to take the denonym usage of the ships into account. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldnt the demonym represent the nation/belligerent that won? That was Denmark-Norway and therefore i see the term "Dano-Norwegian" in the result to fit better as its widely used even on battles with only Danish/Norwegian documented intervention. Furthermore, the result shouldnt reflect on what nationality the ships or people fighting for the nation were, it should reflect on the nation that came out victorious. GusGusBrus (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definitive answer to what denonym Denmark-Norway has. Therefore, in situations like this, we look at what the sources use as denonym. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This simply isn’t true. As the scholar Johnny Grandjean Gøgsig Jakobsen puts it, “Danish” was often used to refer to the joint kingdoms and was used as the adjective of the union. He also in emphasizes on how Dano-Norwegian is a more correct term to describe such. What do you base it not having a definite demonym? It’s common that Denmark/Danish are the terms used in many cases, especially in older documents. This, however doesn’t change the fact that the Realm and its military shouldn’t be split apart such as one could do in a personal union. Dano-Norwegian is widely used and accepted, it fits Denmark-Norway as a real union between the kingdoms and is more reasonable to use. GusGusBrus (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no historical consensus on what term is more useful, hence why it should be decided by the sources describing each battle. And 0 of those use "Dano-norwegian". Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are talking specifically about the ships. I suggest you reread what i said about what Johnny Grandjean Gøgsig Jakobsen said about it. GusGusBrus (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No? The sources only mention the nationalities of the ships and Denmark-Norway as the victorious nation. Therefore it wouldn't make sense that Denmark-Norway being victorious = Danish victory instead of Dano-Norwegian? The same way if the Soviet Union fought with Russian ships and the sources called them Russian ships without mentioning “Soviet” it would still be a Soviet victory? GusGusBrus (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the same go for my Soviet example? Also the navy consisted both of Norwegians and Danes, so i dont think the result should be based on where the ships were made, rather the nation or the people of the nation which prevailed. GusGusBrus (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot compare Soviet and "Dano-Norwegian", since Soviet was a denonym for the citizens of the Soviet Union, just like British is for Britain.
Dano-Norwegian on the other hand is not a denonym for all the citizens of Denmark-Norway. Dano-Norwegian were Danes or Norwegians who lived in the respective opposite country, or had mixed Danish and Norwegian blood. A Danish farmer on Lolland would not be considered "Dano-Norwegian", where you could rightfully call a Georgian a Soviet.
The fact of the matter is that Denmark-norway didnt have a denonym just like many other composite states, hence why would should look at what the individual sources say. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example on my part, but you could compare it to the Byzantine Empire, where the inhabitants were considered romans compared to the modern term Byzantine. Also i see you going against your logic when it comes to Norwegians. For example, in your lead in the Capture of Tranquebar (1801) article you mention a Norwegian as a "Dano-Norwegian" which makes it look like you follow the logic where Danish = Danish and Norwegian = Dano-Norwegian. The term Dano-Norwegian is an accepted and used term to refer to the nation and is what should be used. GusGusBrus (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is very simple. I look at the sources. And the sources call Peter Anker Dano-Norwegian and Norwegian. Dano-norwegian because he served the Danish government (as consul in London and governor in Tranquebar) and Norwegian because he was ethnically Norwegian. So when i used Dano-Norwegian to describe him i'm referring to his more administrative experience for the state. If it bothers you feel free to add a note. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are making it seem as Norway was more autonomous than it was. It was a single nation and government, and that should automatically destroy the argument that the place which is meant to show which belligerent came out victorious should be where the ships were made (?) Also its not a secret that Denmark and Danish is often used to describe the union, and it would therefore be wrong and potentially misleading to base it off such. Especially with Denmark-Norway and Dano-Norwegian being widely accepted and used in modern times. GusGusBrus (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what makes you think that "Danish ships" means "ship made in Denmark" rather than "Ships with Danes"? If it says "Danish ship" then it should be Danish victory. Doesn't matter if Danish is referring to the shipe place or the seamen on the ship, since we will never know that. So what we have to follow is what the sources say, it's a very simple guideline. If you disagree with the guideline then it's not me to talk to, but the clear fact of the matter is that i follow that guideline. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the Dano-Norwegian navy enlisted both people from Denmark and Norway and that they didnt have a seperate navy. What makes you think the ships consisted of purely Danes? Not that this would change anything as it shouldnt be based on nationalities in certain engagements. GusGusBrus (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the ships were so highly Norwegian then the sources would say that. But for i don't know how many times, we as editors have to follow the guidelines. That's how it goes. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As i said the ships were probably Danish. But looking at your logic it seems irrational that there arent any of the colonial conflicts with Norwegian intervention when it conscripted both. And Dano-Norwegian is used to describe the nation as a whole so that would be the most appropriate. GusGusBrus (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tinkaer1991. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Danish intervention in the Thirty Years' War, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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.
