User talk:Stavgard

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Stavgard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Geats. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

February 2012

Please make sure that you use reliable sources for all of your articles, please also make sure that you wp:wikify everything, and follow Wikipedia standards for formatting. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?????? wp:wikify everything, 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A discussion about your edits

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stavgard and discuss your edits there. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please stop what you are doing. The pages you are creating are of little use for Wikipedia:
  • They are unformatted - in one long block of text and without paragraphs [note: you need to use two line breaks to separate paragraphs] or wikilinks. See the manual of style.
  • They are unreferenced, and read more like an academic paper than an encyclopedic article. If it's a research paper you have written, then please note that original research is outside the scope of Wikipedia. If it's written by somebody else, then it's a copyright violation.
  • They are sometimes duplicate to topics that already exist on Wikipedia.

Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Gotland, the Pearl of the Baltic Sea

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Gotland, the Pearl of the Baltic Sea. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Gotland. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Gotland - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, please do reply to messages here

Hi Stavgard! While your contributions to the Wikipedia project are appreciated, there are some problems with them. So what to do now? The first thing to to do is to reply to the messages written here! Please do reply to messages posted here. Your fellow Wikipedians are here to help build this project, and here to help you build this project. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Essays

Have you ever considered the possibility of using paragraphs and section headings? Do you think that people might find it rather daunting to see 14kbytes of solid text. Have you looked at any other Wikipedia articles to see how they are laid out? Please answer. If you do not reply, I shall assume that you have a limited grasp of English and that these essays are in fact copyright violations.

More importantly, have you looked at any other Wikipedia articles to see how they cover notable subjects and are well referenced?

You probably have copies of your essays but just in case, I have lumped most of them together into User:Stavgard/sandbox. Each one can be accessed via the edit history.

I have left astronomical calendars in Gotland. It is possible that this may be developed into a decent article. The first thing to do of course is to work on the references. Do not create any more articles until astronomical calendars in Gotland has been around for a few days and appears to be acceptable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Website

What is your relationship to http://stavgard.com? I see you include the URL in your edits. Are your contributions your own research or are you paraphrasing legitimate academic work? Original research is not permitted and your edits are going to be reverted soon if you don't communicate with us. Россия является вашим родным языком? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Link don't work with www in front. That's funny - which edits included the link? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

this one. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates. They are there to ensure that the articles meet the required standards of quality. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Astronomical calendars in Gotland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Template:Z46 Please engage in discussion on your talk page with regards to the concern about your articles. If you continue to not discuss but continue to create these articles despite the concern and calls for discussion, you will be blocked from editing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Astronomical calendars in Gotland

The article Astronomical calendars in Gotland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essay-like article that is at best something that needs to be started over and very likely duplicates existing topics.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again you need to use reliable sources.

As per everyone above. I reverted your additions to Gotland as the violate wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So what must I do to extend the Gotlandic history with what I wrote and correct incorrectness on the page? Stavgard (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Temporary block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked you for 12 hours because today you have started again adding massive amounts of unreferenced text to various articles. This is just one example. Please start discussing these additions either here or on the relevant talk page. Continuing to edit in this way is beginning to become disruptive. If you don't understand what is going on and cannot see why you have been blocked, then please reply here by editing this page or by editing the 'talk' page linked next to my name. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by unreferenced text? I am the author of the Gotlandic history and have researched it since 1990. My first book came in 1990 Gutarnas historia and sold in 7000 copies. In 1994 came an extended version "Gotland Östersjöns pärla, centrum för handel och kultur i Östersjöområdet under 2000 år" In 1996 a German translation was published. Now after 15 more years of research the manuscript for a new book in English about the Gotlandic history is ready. It is my copyright material that I use extracts from.

On the page of Gotland somebody with poor knowledge of the Gotlandic history has written the text. If you want something about Gotland on Wikipedia it must be correct. {{unblock}} Did not find out how to communicate with you before.

OK, thank you for replying on the talk page here - that is very helpful! (By the way, you can sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your talk page posts.) "Unreferenced text" means that the text you entered did not have any indication of a reliable source to show where the information had come from. Even if you have written this information yourself and can vouch for its accuracy, we need a citation of a journal, book, authoritative website etc where it appears so people can go back to the source. References do not have to be in English but it does help. If you can link any publication information for non-English additions that will help. We can then show you how to use in-line references by using the <ref></ref> tags. On the copyright issue, we cannot I am afraid take your word for it that you hold the copyright. You could be anyone plagiarising the text! The full information is at WP:COPYVIO but essentially the material needs rewording (or you need to release it into the public domain entirely, which I guess your publishers might not be happy about...)

I will check here periodically during the day to see if you leave any more messages - but perhaps others with eyes on this page can help as well. Best wishes and thanks gain for replying, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tore: Your books are not reliable sources. You are not a historian, they are not published by publishers publishing reliable historical texts. I love your books and theories, but they are just speculation, and not facts. You can't present them as facts here. Please read the relevant Wikipedia policies, mainly WP:V.

You have a lot to contribute here, but you can't use the books as sources. I do like, and I improved on, you pointing out that Jordanes does not name Scandinavia, he names an island in the arctic sea. You think it's Gotland, most people thinks it's Scandinavia (I think the two got mixed up). Pointing out, with sources, what he actually said is an improvement. Claiming he described Gotland is not acceptable, because that's your personal theory that nobody else subscribes to. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you taking about? I am an recognized historian with 20 years of research on the early Baltic history. My research is recognized by various scholars such as Professor Bo Gräslund,Professor Åke Hyenstrand now desesed, Professor Jan Svanberg, Professor Kenneth Jonsson, Fil.Dr. Jan-Peder Lamm, I had close contact with the late Gad Rausing etc

I'm sorry, Tore, this is both not the case, and also irrelevant. You, and your self-published books, are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia policies. These policies are there for a good reason. You need to read the policies. They explain it in detail. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard - on the internet, nobody knows who you are! I could post my own theories and say I have dozens of people who agree with them, but until I post precise details of reliable sources I would just be making empty claims. Can you provide citations of reliable sources (books, journals, authoritative websites) to demonstrate that these assertions are verifiable? That's all we're asking, but I'm afraid your personal reassurances are not enough. (By the way, you can sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your talk page posts.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Germanic-L/ . this is an international discussion group with more than 650 members from all over the world. I am well known among all this members, many of them professors in various subjects

Tore Gannholm ~~~~ If you GOOGLE on Tore Gannholm you get about 21 300 results and you say I am unknown on internet!!!

Yes, you are well-known, especially on Gotland. This changes nothing. Nobody is a reliable source. You are no exception. For example, you claim to be Tore Gannholm. I believe you, but can you *prove it*? No you can't. You just claim to be Tore Gannholm, but how do we know you aren't lying?

YOU are not a reliable source. You have to have reliable sources for the things you add. It really is that simple. Please read WP:V. Don't bother answering here until you have read WP:V. (Btw, if you google my real name, you get 100.000 hits. And I *am* unknown on the internet. And I'm definitely not a reliable source.) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't include the "nowiki" parts when you sign. If fact, there is a picture of a pen making a signature above in the editor. Use that to sign. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are unknown - just that until this moment you had not indicated any source for the information you were adding. Whether or not the material is suitable as a reliable source I cannot say right now - I will do as you say and look.

My e-mail is tore@gannholm.org and I got this e-mail the other day. He sent it to my brother who forwarded it to my. I did not find the link how to reply to you. The links I found just pushed me round in a circle. Now I know how I get hold of you.

- Forwarded message ---------- From: Roger W Haworth <W@rhaworth.net> Date: 2012/2/12 Subject: Dumb insolence To: soren@gannholm.org

I assume that you are Stavgard on Wikipedia.

Why on earth are you refusing to discuss? You are very likely to be blocked for "dumb insolence", ie. incivility rather than for your edits.

In case you don't understand, please go to your talk page. Read its content fully then click on the Edit link at the top of the page and reply to us. RHaworth

Now when I know how to communicate with you I expect a civilized communication Tore Gannholm ~~~~

You can also find me on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1342689404 Tore Gannholm ~~~~

Once again: Do *not* include the nowiki and /nowiki parts when you sign. When you include it, it does not make a signature.

Also, please read WP:V and confirm that you have read and understood it. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard - we have been trying to contact you for days. That is what the big orange bar with "You have messages at your talk page" means. It's disappointing that you have only decided to respond once you were blocked, but let's try and sort things out now. I have used Google Scholar with the name Tore Gannholm and have found three sources. Gutarnas historia :från förhistorisk tid till den slutliga svenska annekteringen 1679 sems to have been self-published in 1990. Guta lagh :med Gutasagan was published in 1994 by Ganne BURS and Gotland : Östersjöns pärla : centrum för handel och kultur i Östersjöområdet under 2000 år was published by Eget (I think) also in 1994. Self-published sources are not regarded as reliable here until they have themselves been cited by other authorities. As for the other two, I can't tell if they are reliable or not; I don't know the publishers. If these are reputabe, academic publishers with a strong editorial policy and a list of comparable publications then there is absolutely no problem. If they are your own imprint, there IS a problem. In between is a matter of judgement. Do you have any links to the publishers catalogues or other sites that would help us in this? By the way, just try typing ~ four times at the end of your posts - then you will get a signature like this: Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, is that what you want

According to Prof. Birger Nerman, Fv 1954 p 274: "The Scandinavian connections during the Late Bronze Age have been areas further east than Eastern Russia, and this will primarily concern Gotland. It is especially to Caucasus where a very rich culture flourished, that contacts during the relevant times apply " "You can imagine that the Gotlandic merchants during the late Bronze Age went out on the roads east and southeast of the Baltic Sea. Even people from other parts of the Nordic countries have probably made their way out on these trade routes. The Eastern influences have certainly in a significant way been mediated by the Gotlanders to the other tribes in Scandinavia." According to Dr. Vello Louga, Kontakter mellan Skandinavien och Östeuropa innan vikingatiden, p 123: "The eastern contact zone between the Scandinavian and Finno-urgian tribes is the upper and middle Volga region. Especially the Mari region is interesting in terms of the central area. It seems quite clear that relations between Scandinavia and the Volga region during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age were direct." "In the 1970s a well-preserved cemetery from the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age was excavated, the old Achmulova grave field, where there is more than 1000 graves dating back to 800-500 BCE. In this cemetery are many of the skeletons encased in a ship-shaped wooden structure in the ground, but there is no indication above ground. Similar tombs are known from the same time only on Gotland, but there they are in stone vessels and stone coffins, and in the eastern Baltic coast are also some ship graves."

According to Professor Nihlén, Gotländska gårdar och byar under äldre järnåldern p 133: "It is the iron that creates a new basis for the future meaningful high, indigenous culture. On Gotland these developments are easy to follow. The island was in the forefront, they imported their own bog ore and they were likely to early have played a role in the trade of iron. In this way was created in the second century BCE conditions for the whole rich and multifaceted culture we encounter during the time of 'Kämpgravar'."

According to Professor Eric Nylén, Fv 1952 p 225: "Curiously, Gotland is quite alone in the Nordic region with the art boom, which might have caused one of the first big boosts to Gotland as a trading post in the Baltic Sea. Several of those ornamental details described here are found in Stradonice but occur to some extent also elsewhere in the Celtic area." Sune Lindqvist, Sveriges handel under forntiden, p. 58: "But the geographical location made the Gothic influence in the beginning strongest felt on Gotland which was located in the middle of the Vistula mouth (compare how Tacitus and Jordanes describes Gotland). This island, which is probably counting her sons in large numbers among emigrants, had ever since the Neolithic a highly distinctive culture, due to its on one hand isolated situation and on the other due to its inviting location links to very different directions. The Bronze Age culture was rich. Its oldest Iron Age culture, which should be considered to have been simultaneous with the 6th Bronze Age period, is richer than in any other part of Sweden. Even the Celtic and the beginning future culture is distinguished represented. With the sudden flare-up of Gothic influences, Gotland now took a real foreground position. It is apparently the first full-age appearance of the Gotlandic commercial aristocracy, who then gathered in their hands the threads of vast trading networks throughout the remainder of non-Christian times and even during the first centuries of the Middle Ages, to be broken first by the Atterdag campaign (1361) and by the German Hanseatic League (founded 1358) cut-throat competition." Stavgard (talk) You write: Could you try and draft something similar here so we can see how you manage? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC) But I am blocked to try

1. ^Fritz Askeberg, Norden och kontinenten i gammal tid p. 42 2. ^Canterbury Tales 3. ^Country antiquarian David Damell, Fornsigtuna p 24 4. ^Dr. Hilda Roderick Ellis Davidson, The Viking Road to Byzantium, p. 57 5. ^Gunnar Fritzell Gotländska samlingar, p 5 ff 6. ^Martin Giertz, Gotlands Allehanda 1990 7. ^Academic treatise, as authorized by the Faculty of Philosophy in Lund to public scrutiny produced by August Hammarström Lund 1873 p. 41 8. ^Göran Henriksson says in Riksbloten i Uppsala p. 19 9. ^Henriksson, G. article from the symposium in Mosow 2002. "The grooves on the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea: a Neolithic lunar calendar". In Proceedings of the conference “Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations” of the European Society for Astronomy in Culture (SEAC) and National Astronomical Meeting (JENAM), Moscow, May 23-27, 2000, ed. T. M. Potyomkina and V. N. Obridko, 72-77. Moscow. 10.^Ibn Chordadhbeh (Book of the ways and countries 847) 11. ^Ibn Fadlan 12. ^Ibn Rustah 13. ^Barbro Idoffs article in Gotländska studier 2 p. 39 14. ^Jordanes 15. ^Professor Lars-König Königsson, Fornsigtuna p 20 16. ^Professor Sune Lindqvist, Sveriges handel under forntiden, p. 58 17. ^Professor Sune Lindqvist, Arkeologiska studier, p 73 18. ^Professor Sune Lindqvist, Vendelkulturens ålder och ursprung p. 101 19. ^Professor Sune Lindqvist, Sveriges handel under forntiden p. 58 20. ^Professor Sune Lindqvist, Ynglingaättens gravskick p 154 21. ^Fjalar Linge, Gotländska studier 2 p. 29 22. ^Dr. Vello Louga, Kontakter mellan Skandinavien och Östeuropa innan vikingatiden, p 123 23. ^Professor Birger Nerman, Fv 1954 p 274 24. ^Professor Birger Nerman, En kristen mission på Gotland p 38 25. ^Professor Birger Nerman in Die Vendelkultur im Lichte des gotländischen Funde p 94 26. ^Professor Nihlén, Gotländska gårdar och byar under äldre järnåldern p. 62ff 27. ^Professor Adolf Noreen, Fv 1920 p 31 28. ^Professor Eric Nylén, Fv 1952 p 225 29. ^Professor Eric Nylén, Bildstenar p 22 30. ^Frederick Ochsner, Gotlands kristnande p. 25 31. ^Prokopios 32. ^Dr. Gad Rausing's field studies. Fv 1985 33. ^Professor Herman Schück, Gotland och biskoparna i Linköping, GA 1961 p 45 34. ^Professor Adolf Schück, STF:s årsskrift 1940 p 80 35. ^Professor Adolf Schück, Gotlands politiska historia p 199, p 206 36. ^Professor Mårten Stenberger, Det forntida Gotland, p. 86 37. ^Professor Mårten Stenberger, STF årsskrift 1962 p. 53 38. ^Hans Nielsson Strelow: Den Guthilandiske Cronica 1633 39. ^Professor Arved Svabe, Lettlands historia 40. ^Tacitus Germania 41. ^Thunmark-Nylén, L., 1985. Gotlandsparadoxen. (The Gotlandic paradox.) Tor 1985. Uppsala. 42. ^Professor Elis Wadstein, Friserna och forntida handelsvägar i Norden p 11 43. ^Professor Elias Wessen, Fv 1969 p 27

Crimean Gothic communities appear to have survived intact in Crimea until the late 18th century.

You'll see that the in-line citations appear at the end of the piece. They are both to good secondary sources, with a page number in the case of the book. This is what e need you to do when you make edits to a Wikipedia article. Could you try and draft something similar here so we can see how you manage? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, is that what you want

According to Prof. Birger Nerman, Fv 1954 p 274: "The Scandinavian connections during the Late Bronze Age have been areas further east than Eastern Russia, and this will primarily concern Gotland. It is especially to Caucasus where a very rich culture flourished, that contacts during the relevant times apply " "You can imagine that the Gotlandic merchants during the late Bronze Age went out on the roads east and southeast of the Baltic Sea. Even people from other parts of the Nordic countries have probably made their way out on these trade routes. The Eastern influences have certainly in a significant way been mediated by the Gotlanders to the other tribes in Scandinavia." According to Dr. Vello Louga, Kontakter mellan Skandinavien och Östeuropa innan vikingatiden, p 123: "The eastern contact zone between the Scandinavian and Finno-urgian tribes is the upper and middle Volga region. Especially the Mari region is interesting in terms of the central area. It seems quite clear that relations between Scandinavia and the Volga region during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age were direct." "In the 1970s a well-preserved cemetery from the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age was excavated, the old Achmulova grave field, where there is more than 1000 graves dating back to 800-500 BCE. In this cemetery are many of the skeletons encased in a ship-shaped wooden structure in the ground, but there is no indication above ground. Similar tombs are known from the same time only on Gotland, but there they are in stone vessels and stone coffins, and in the eastern Baltic coast are also some ship graves."

According to Professor Nihlén, Gotländska gårdar och byar under äldre järnåldern p 133: "It is the iron that creates a new basis for the future meaningful high, indigenous culture. On Gotland these developments are easy to follow. The island was in the forefront, they imported their own bog ore and they were likely to early have played a role in the trade of iron. In this way was created in the second century BCE conditions for the whole rich and multifaceted culture we encounter during the time of 'Kämpgravar'."

According to Professor Eric Nylén, Fv 1952 p 225: "Curiously, Gotland is quite alone in the Nordic region with the art boom, which might have caused one of the first big boosts to Gotland as a trading post in the Baltic Sea. Several of those ornamental details described here are found in Stradonice but occur to some extent also elsewhere in the Celtic area." Sune Lindqvist, Sveriges handel under forntiden, p. 58: "But the geographical location made the Gothic influence in the beginning strongest felt on Gotland which was located in the middle of the Vistula mouth (compare how Tacitus and Jordanes describes Gotland). This island, which is probably counting her sons in large numbers among emigrants, had ever since the Neolithic a highly distinctive culture, due to its on one hand isolated situation and on the other due to its inviting location links to very different directions. The Bronze Age culture was rich. Its oldest Iron Age culture, which should be considered to have been simultaneous with the 6th Bronze Age period, is richer than in any other part of Sweden. Even the Celtic and the beginning future culture is distinguished represented. With the sudden flare-up of Gothic influences, Gotland now took a real foreground position. It is apparently the first full-age appearance of the Gotlandic commercial aristocracy, who then gathered in their hands the threads of vast trading networks throughout the remainder of non-Christian times and even during the first centuries of the Middle Ages, to be broken first by the Atterdag campaign (1361) and by the German Hanseatic League (founded 1358) cut-throat competition."

How to produce in-line citations

Hello again, it looks like you are experimenting with how references work but are having some trouble. Can I suggest you have a look at this page which gives you instructions for how to insert in-line citations and generate a reference list?

You are still blocked for a few more hours but until you can master this I suggest you DON'T try to edit Wikipedia; if you try and make a mess of a reference list in main article space you will not be popular! I suggest you set up a new sandbox page and experiment with the edits you want to make. I'll help you out - edit this red link to produce a sandbox page where you can experiment to your heart's content. I suggest you start with a draft of a paragraph you'd like to include in an existing article somewhere. Message me back here if you need further help - I will help as often as I can (but can't guarantee to be here all the time.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. I entered the the references in the box you suggested and it looks like your examples. I presume these references should be added to added to the reference list on GOTLAND but how do I get it in there and how do I get back the facts you refersed? Stavgard (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, I'm sorry but again you haven't done what I suggested at all. Please read this page. Then use your sandbox to draft an addition to the Gotland article]]; I will help when you have something there. At the moment you are treating the reference list as if Wikipedia was paper - it's not. We use in-line references within the text and the software then assembles them into a reference list at the end. Please read WP:INCITE to understand how this works. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right it is not like writing on paper. It really needs supervison. It looks like I got it right now Stavgard (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's much better. I did some updates to improve it even more, by using citation templates, like this. They make it easy to create good citations, where you can easily look up and verify the claims.

In addition, I would like to point out that Fornvännen certainly is a reliable source, but that Sören Gannholms self-published "Gotlands slipskåror" just as definitely is not. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You call it self-published. In Sweden we get funds from various foundations to print this type of books. If the book does not hold certain standards you do not get any funds. Sörens book is important as this is an inventory of all the grooves on Gotland (a kind of Bible) and is compiled in co-operation with the Gotland museum an funded by the Mårten Stenberger Scholarship fund and the Society of DBW's Foundation. You save money by having it printed yourself.

I will give you an example. My Book in German, which is translated into German by a reknown archaeologist than at the University of Kiel, I inteded to publish through a wellknown publisher in Northern Germany. They demanded that I pay the full printing cost and after that I would get 10% commission on sold books. It had it printed myself and kept the full profit. Therfore I started Stavgard förlag and have mine and my friends books printed there. I have done the design myself and the books layout has been appreciated.

I realise that I have to think in different lines when I work on Wikipedia against who I worked in PageMaker. Now it is Indesign. Stavgard (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You earlier referred to Ingemar Nordgren (2004). The Well Spring of the Goths: About the Gothic Peoples in the Nordic Countries and on the Continent.

If you didn't know it it is an selfproduced book with what you call speculations. But good for discussions. I know Ingemar well and we have internationally discussed very much on our e-group. He had to pay a publisher to have them to distribute the book. Stavgard (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly did not refer to that book. Somebody did. If it isn't a reliable source for its claim, it should be marked as such, and preferably not used. This is also something you can fix. I do not even know where this reference is.

Discussion is good, and your books are excellent examples of books that help discussion. But Wikipedia is not about discussion it is about knowledge. Here we should write what we know, not speculate or discuss. There are better forums for that. Your theories on astronomical alignments should definitely be mentioned, but we can't show them as facts, they have to be definitely mentioned as speculation, and this only because we don't know for sure. All theories on these grooves are speculation. Your's is a fringe one, but well-known enough to be mentioned IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It not my theories. Göran Henriksson is a recognized scholar in this field. He has made a computer program to date according to how the sky looked in the past. He has redated the Egyptian Faraos which is no accepted. As well as the Trojan war. NASA has been on him a couple of times to by the program.

The fact is that you can see these grooves with your own eyes and they are provenly from the Stone Age. In the article it says the dating is according to Göran Henriksson.

Why do you show Stonhenge? It falls in the same categorie. Stavgard (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Stonehenge does not fall in the same category. And archeo-astronomy is a highly controversial field, and Göran Henriksson has been heavily criticized. His research has been called "nonsense" by archaeologists as well as astronomers. It is not a fact that the grooves are from the stone age. It is your opinion. It can not in any way be proven by what we know today, nor can it be disproven. We simply don't know for sure, and the articles need to reflect this.

Arguments like we have now are the reason for why wikipedias policies are centered on the verifiability of claims based on reliable sources. A self-published book does not become a reliable source because you managed to get some funding for the printing. That's not how it works. The books are still self-published. For your (and Henrikssons) writings to be reliable sources they need to be published by peer-reviewed journals or publishers that are well known for academic quality publishing. That's just how it is, and you will have to accept that.

This doesn't mean that your writings can not be used as references. They can, if they are used to reference something that is clearly noted as being a fringe view. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To try and move us forward, I have edited the article on Gotland with this edit using informatoin from your sandbox. I haven't used everything you wrote as it would be too much information in one general article. There's also one reference needed - to the dating made by the Dept of Astronomy at Uppsala - do we have a reference for that? Now, it's possible someone may revert this edit but in principle it's an illustration of how to add to an article; brief information, with a reference, that does not undily unbalance the rest of the article. Is there another snippet of information, where you have good references, that we can include as a second step? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is Fil.Dr. Göran Henriksson at the Dept of Astronomy at Uppsala that have dated them. They are also archaeologically dated to the Stone Age.

This is enough for Astronomical calendars to start with. What worries me is my other corrections on Gotland that have been deleated again.

I see that you gone back to the desinformation and taken away my corrections. There is not a RAM in the Gotlandic seal it is a EYE, that is important. It is the feminine animal

Visby was not a Hanseatic city. Visby never joined the Hanse. There is a letter about that they preferred to stay outside the Hanse and mind their own business. The ward "hanse" does not exit in Visby. It only appers in the Baltic Sea after the formation of the German Hanse in 1358

This is a complete lie!! The city of Visby and rest of the island were governed separately, and a civil war caused by conflicts between the German merchants in Visby and the peasants they traded with in the countryside had to be put down by King Magnus III of Sweden in 1288

The Swedish king mediated as he 2 years earlier had mediated between Norway and German traders in Norway I suggest my correction in this part is put back. Stavgard (talk)

Re the insertion I made to the Gotland article - you say above when I ask for a reference: "It is Fil.Dr. Göran Henriksson at the Dept of Astronomy at Uppsala that have dated them. They are also archaeologically dated to the Stone Age.". This is not a reference. A reference is a published book, peer reviewed article or authoritative website where this information can be accessed. Where has Dr Henriksson published his dating of the grooves? This is the reference we need to insert. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this part. Fil.Dr. Göran Henriksson has been attached to both the Dept of Astronomy and Dept of Archaeologi at Uppsala

Paper presented at Conference: SEAC 8th. Moscow 2000 Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations ISBN: 5-02-008768-8  Editor(s): Prof. Tamila Potemkina & Prof. V. Obridko Place/Year: Moscow, 2002

Stavgard (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Gotland Merchant Farmers Republic

To be able to use Capital Letters it has to be an official name. Was there an official state? What was it's official name in Swedish? Where are your claims that Visby broke away from this republic in the war (most historians instead see it as a war between the town and the countryside, as pre-existing separate entities). --OpenFuture (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with Sweden, Gotland was an independent republic today normally named "The Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic"

The official name in trade agreements from that time is "Gutniska kusten" (The Gotlandic coast)

They did not speak Swedish on Gotland. The official language was Gutnish, very similar to Gothic

Stavgard (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see you know very little about Gotlandic history. I have researched on Gotlandic history since 1990 and can by heart give you the sources. Stavgard (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know a lot of Gotlandic history, so your stupid attempts to insult me gets you nowhere. Yes, please, give me the sources.

Also, why have you decided to translate "Gutniska kusten" as "Gotland Merchant Farmers Republic". That makes no sense. It was not a "republic" in any meaningful sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, it's really not helpful to insult other editors here as you just did. You may know more about Gotland's history than the rest of us, but you don't know much yet about editing Wikipedia. You need our help and vice versa, and causing bad feeling by demeaning others is not going to help us collaborate. On the issue of the Gotland Merchant Farmers Republic I can see no references to this entity on a quick Google search, apart from links back to Wikipedia and other inherently unreliable sources (yes, Wikipedia is oficially an unreliable source!) I see no evidence that this entity ever existed in any formal sense. Of course a search using Swedish or some other language might have more results. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but sometimes I get a bit frustrated. "Det som i dag kallas Sverige fanns nog inte när avtalet ingicks, men att gutarna hade ett Allting i sin farmannarepublik vet man dock. Läsövning från Gutasagan: ..."

In Swedish it is called Farmannarepublik. There is very little about Gotlandic history on Wikipedia. There are short extracts from my books by other contributors.

There books about it but none with that title. Erlandsson, Theodor Titel Farmannasagor / av Theodor Erlandsson ; teckningar av David Ahlqvist Språk Svenska Medietyp Bok, artikel eller tidskrift Upplaga Originalupplaga 1949 Utgivning Visby : Wessman & Pettersson, 1949 This book talks about the Merchant Farmers

You must remember that when I started researching Gotlandic history in 1990 there was very little compiled although there are plenty of written sources. I am the first to compile all those sources.

As you can see it is very difficult to get the information into Wikipedia why I concentrate to take away all disinformation. Sometimes I am allowed to put the correct information but it is better to have no information than disinformation

Stavgard (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bernt Enderborg might call it a "farmannarepublik", but I seriously doubt that is a generally accepted term. You need to use the term as used in English sources, or make a direct translation, in this case "The gutnish coast" or similar. You can't use Capital Letters, because this is not a recognized formal entity. It is rather a coalition of traders (indeed, merchant farmers).

I'm dissapointed by the complete lack of sources in your answer. I would have expected you to give me the sources you base this on, but instead you give a quote from the only web page on internet using the word "farmannarepublik".

The actual original sources, that is the trade agreements involving gotland, that I can find does not use the term "Gutniska kusten", although I am aware that such agreements also exist. But it is not a consistent usage as far as I can tell. Also remember that the sources you find have to be pre-1288, as you claim that Visby formally split from Gutniska kusten at this time. Soemthing you *also* have to have a source for. Etc, etc etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/Sv/om-lansstyrelsen/om-lanet/Pages/gotland_historia.aspx This is the official Swedish site. There they call it "Bonderepublik" which in translation is Merchant Farmers Republik Why must it be before 1288? The Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic was not officially abolished until 1618 and the Gotlandic official state seal was used to the mid 1500' Stavgard (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You write: "It is rather a coalition of traders"

Have you heard about the Artlenburg treaty of 1161? In 1158 Henry the Lion invited Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Russian merchants to carry on trade without tariff in his new city foundation Lübeck. The Gotlanders had, since Emperor Lothars time as duke of Saxony (1106 - 1125), had guaranteed trading rights in Saxony. Probably since far back, the Gotlanders had been trading on Bardowick. They do not seem to have been attracted by Henry the Lion's move. The previous agreement between the Emperor Lothair and the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers, dated to the 1120s is broken, and it is spoken in the sources of bloody clashes between Gotlanders and Germans. The hostilities mentioned in the Artlenburg document ensued (1159-1160). Peace was concluded in 1161, in the Saxon customs village Artlenburg, between the Gotlandic Merchant Farmer's Republic, officially called "Gutniska kusten", represented by Liknatte from Stenkyrka, and Henry the Lion of Saxony. This meant that trade peace between the Gotlanders and the Saxon-German merchants was restored. The Gotlanders are secured, against reciprocity, trade privileges in the Duchy of Saxony, which equated them with the duke's own merchants. The Gotlanders thus have the right, without charges to trade in all the Saxon towns, while the Germans have the same right in one of the ports on the Gotlandic coast, namely Visby, where the Danes already have a guild. It is clear that the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic was a trading power that Henry the Lion must bow to. At the same time, however, it clearly shows his policies and goals. Sale of furs and wax on the markets in Western Europe was expanding and the best way to get some of that was to settle on Gotland and exploit the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers knowledge of the transit trade. There is no sign that the Germans participated in any remote trading across the Baltic Sea until after 1161. The Germans lacked both ships and naval experience. The Gotlandic success in the transit trade in the Baltic area was attractive to the Germans. It did, however, take a long time before they managed to get Lübeck to play a role in the Baltic trade and before that "Gutniska kusten" was the leading trading place. Stavgard (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK both of you, time to call a halt on this. Talk pages are not general discussion forums. Stavgard, suggest a specific, referenced edit you would like to make to an article. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not engage in debate or prove our superior knowledge. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to correct desinformation about Gotlandic history i suggest we delete all desinformation instead I repeat that when I came with my first book about Gotlandic history in 1990 there were no serious books about Gotlandic history. As my books only are in Swedish and German I presume you havn't read them. The manuscript to my new extended book is in English but it has not been printed yet Stavgard (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is unreferenced information anywhere it can and should be challenged or removed. Equally, new information needs to be appropriately referened to a reliable source. As far as I can see, I'm afraid your own books do not (mnostly) count as reliable sources although of course some of the sources you use in them may be appropriate. The best way forward here is not further abstract discussin, but drafts of specific changes you would like to make, either here or on the relevant article talk pages. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All my sources are reliable. Professor Bo Gräslund in Uppsala has gone through the way I present the sources and approved of it. Professor Bo Gräslund is even accepting the wars in Beowulf between Gotlanders and Svear. Folkvandringstidens Uppsala 1993. He is now writing a new book about Beowulf and Gotland. I have made the changes that are neccessary to take away desinformation but they have been reversed Stavgard (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"bonderepublik" can not be translated as Merchant Farmers Republic, especially not with capital letters, as now has been explained several times. I also explained why it has to be before 1288, this is not unclear. You are simply not listening, so we won't get further here. If you are not interested in understanding the principles and policies of Wikipedia, you will not be able to contribute, and we will not be able to get rid of the disinformation. The only chance for you to improve Wikipedia is if you make an effort to understand it's principles. Are you willing to make an effort to do so? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't take your word for it that you or your sources are reliable. We can't take your account of what Prof Gräslund says either. Wikipedia has its own criteria for reliability and they are here. If you are unhappy with the views of myself and OpenFuture, there is a noticeboard on reliability of sources where you can ask for an independent ruling. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you translate Bonderepoblik? It is a republic of merchant farmers.

Bonderepubliken Gotland does not cease to exist in 1288. It is just Visby that brakes away and forms an own city republic. I am unhappy that you insist to have desinformation on the Gotlandic history. I don't want people to be misguided with false information. Stavgard (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you: If there is unreferenced information anywhere it can and should be challenged or removed.

This should be removed: Gutnish Republic with the proud ram as it is not a ram but a EYE

This should removed: and the town of Visby was the most important Hanseatic city in the Baltic Sea, As Visby never joined the German Hanse. On the Hanse-day in Lübeck 1364 where Visby was not represented they stated that the merchants in Visby belonged to the German Hanseatic League. On the Hanse-day in Cologne in 1367 representatives from Visby said that they would not like to be forced to be connected to the Hanseatic League, but as before they would like to determine their own trade. Their request was accepted.

This sentance should go out: The city of Visby and rest of the island were governed separately, and a civil war caused by conflicts between the German merchants in Visby and the peasants they traded with in the countryside had to be put down by King Magnus III of Sweden in 1288. As it was a civil war and Visby broke away from the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic.

This sentance should go out as it is wrong: The Victual Brothers occupied the island in 1394 to set up a stronghold as a headquarters of their own in Visby. At last, Gotland became a fiefdom of the Teutonic Knights, awarded to them on the condition that they expel the piratical Victual Brothers from their fortified sanctuary. An invading army of Teutonic Knights conquered the island in 1398, destroying Visby

This sentance should go out as it is wrong: From 1392 the Victual Brothers were acting as pirates, who made the Baltic Sea unsafe. They became known as Vitalians. They began their campaign with among other things to run riot and ravage Gotland. There they built the pirate fortress Landskrone on Vivesholm in Sanda.

The fortress Landskrone on Vivesholm in Sanda. Not Visby Stavgard (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. There is in an official definition and description of the weapon of gotland. This is "I blått fält en stående vädur av silver med beväring av guld, bärande på en korsprydd stång av guld ett rött baner med bård och fem flikar av guld."

The significant word here is "vädur", which means ram. Not ewe, but ram. I know you have some theory that it originally was a ewe, but again, that claim needs a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

About Visby being "Hanseatic" or not: Loads of reliable sources list Visby as a Hansa city. see Hanseatic_League#Lists_of_former_Hansa_cities. If it was officially a part of the Hansa or not is an interesting topic, but this is a general problem with the Hansa, as it wasn't a fixed union of a specific set of cities, but a loose changing coalition of cities. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Information is not reliable only of the reason that it is printed. Deeper research finds new sources. The word Hanse does not exist in the Baltic Sea until after the formation of the Hanseatic League in 1358

On the Hanse-day in Lübeck 1364 where Visby was not represented they stated that the merchants in Visby belonged to the German Hanseatic League. On the Hanse-day in Cologne in 1367 representatives from Visby said that they would not like to be forced to be connected to the Hanseatic League, but as before they would like to determine their own trade. Their request was accepted. This is documented!!!!

For us on Gotland it is NAZI-propaganda from the 1920 when Germany wanted to be big. I know the German litterature and have most of it. About 10 years ago I attended a symposium in Lübeck on the Hanse with mostly German professors. I was the only one from Sweden.

When I pressed them on Visby and the Hanse they had to admit that I was right. Stavgard (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is also an lye: An impressive feature of Visby is the fortress wall that surrounds the old city, dating from the time of the Hanseatic League.

The wall is from the 1280' and the Hanseatic league was founded in 1358

Stavgard (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nazi-propaganda from the 20s? What utter nonsense. The sources we have for Visby being a Hansa-city are from between 1863 and 2000.

So we *have* reliable sources that Visby was a Hanseatic town. We only have your word that this is wrong. We can't change it.

Do you understand why? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also: Please do not call incorrect information "lies". I'm sure whoever claimed the wall around Visby was Hanseatic simply didn't know better. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand you can't change it but you can take it out so we don't have disinformation about the Gotlandic history. I understand you don't accpet new research. If somebody has written something in the past it can't according to your rules be updated.

Dr Hugo Yrwing writes Gotlands Medeltid Inom östersjöområdet förekommer inte ordet hansa under 1100- och 1200-talen, vilket har sin naturliga förklaring. Stavgard (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

if this is the case : I'm sure whoever claimed the wall around Visby was Hanseatic simply didn't know better. Than it must be possible to delete it. Stavgard (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is. I've already changed it so it now says "13th century". This is an uncontroversial simple change. I might even dig up a reliable source later. Nobody contradicts this. Obviously you think your theories are correct, that's self-evident. But you seem to not realize that they are controversial and not generally accepted, or you simply want Wikipedia to display your opinions in preference to other opinions. You need to recognize that this is not reasonable. This is not how science or Wikipedia works. When you make a controversial statement, like the claim that the sheep is not a ram but a ewe, you must have reliable sources to back that up. Until you accept that, your efforts of contributing here will largely be wasted.

I understand you don't accpet new research. If somebody has written something in the past it can't according to your rules be updated. - This is wrong. We do accept new research. You are not listening to what we tell you!

Tore, you MUST read WP:V. We have asked you over and over. PLEASE read it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"But you seem to not realize that they are controversial and not generally accepted" They are not controversial. There is always somebody who tries to show that he or she has an other opinion. Why do you think my first book 20 years ago sold in 7000 copies. I have discussed the content in various academical circles and nobody has come up with something wrong. I have lectured with professor Hans Rebas at the university of Kiel on the Deutsche Hanse.

My new book in English has been controlled by a dr in archaeologi and a professor in art history.

Earlier today somebod this was written ", and Göran Henriksson has been heavily criticized. His research has been called "nonsense" by archaeologists as well as astronomers. It is not a fact that the grooves are from the stone age. It is your opinion." by [User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know about the article. It was written by a student who calls himself archaelogist has taken some courses at the university but has no academic exam. This article was sharply countered. This man is no writing childrens books

Stavgard (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read this: WP:V? Yes/No? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, two experienced editors have been trying over the last two days to help you understand how Wikipedia works. I'm going to repeat myself one last time but then I'm going to shut up and leave you in peace. It does not matter what circles you have discussed your work in. It does not matter who you have debated with. It does not matter whether or not you think your findings are uncontroversial and widely accepted. A central pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. This means that if your assertions about your work are truly widely accepted, there will be evidence of that wide acceptance in reputable books, journals and websites that have been written by OTHER PEOPLE (not just by you.) These must be published sources that anyone can consult, not lectures, private meetings, conferences or lectures. In order to add material to an article, you need to find those external sources and cite them in anything you write. Your own work, on its own, is not sufficiently reliable. You can use the reliable sources which you have cited in your own work, and also on any reliable sources who cite you and thereby demonstrate the acceptance of your theories. Anything else is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

I'm sorry if this feels insulting, or demeaning of your expertise, or as if we are saying we don't want your input. That's not the case: it would be great to have more detail on the topic area you are familiar with, but you cannot simply give as a reference "because I say so" or "because I discussed this with a well known Professor." I very strongly suggest that you read the blue linked pages in my paragraph above. If you read them and follow their guidance you will find it much easier to improve the articles here; if you don't then you are likely to find editing Wikipedia a very frustrating and unrewarding experience. I won't post further here unless you specifically ask me for any guidance, but I will keep this page on my watchlist. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I fully understand your point of view and that it is impossible to post correct material on Gotlandic history. The best is that you remove Gotlandic history from Wikipedia as it is very frustrating to hear that they read it on Wikipedia and it needs a long discussion to show them that it is nonsens they read on Wikipedia.

Until now we don't have a professor in Gotlandic history and nobody seems to be interested to spend money on research and writing i similar book. I am sorry, but that is the case. We will need a sponsor for a professor in Gotlandic history. Stavgard (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I must thank you for all the help I have received to learn how Wikipedia functions. Unfortunately I will not have much help of it. The reason why I now publish the Gotlandic history in English is that we want to reach a larger audience. Today it is only available in Swedish and German. That is the reason you don't find much about Gotlandic history. As Gotland was an independant country and only was annexed by Sweden in 1679 the Swedes have not really been interesed in Gotlandic history until I came with my first book.

A little amusing story: On day the Swedish king's aid, who I knew, phoned me and pleaded I must help him. The king of Norway was coming to visit him and King Carl-Gustav wanted a copy of Gutarnas historia to be placed on the sideboard next to King Haralds bed.

Stavgard (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Yes I fully understand your point of view and that it is impossible to post correct material on Gotlandic history. "

We have said nothing like this. This is not our position.

Do you want the misinformations about Gotland to remain in Wikipedia? --OpenFuture (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you according to your rules can't correct it you must delete all misinformation. You can see where I have changed and you have reversed. All that I have changed was misinformation. Stavgard (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We can correct it. Do you want to help to correct it? It is a simple question. Why don't you answer it? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You can correct it by reverse your reverse of my corrections Stavgard (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your credibility is very low. You use very questionably sources for your refutations

lthough his methodology has been heavily criticized.

This journal is very disreputable. And Jonathan Lindström is the person I mentioned earlier that has no academic exam but poses as an archaelogist. He has taken som courses in archaeology but never finished. He is a very controversial person. And he uses his teacher Roslunds name although Roslund was no part of this article. Stavgard (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the question. It is a simple Yes/No/Maybe question. It is not hard to answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a question here but I see what you have done to the page Gotland. If you consider Folkvett for a recognized source than you are very far out. I want to think of you as an honest editor but in that case you can't use this disreputable sourse. They tried to make some statements before Chrismas but got blacklisted by Swedish media.

yes Stavgard (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions you have not answered: 1. Are you interested in improving Wikipedia and removing incorrect information? 2. Have you read this page --> Wikipedia:Verifiability --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I bother to be here is that I want to improve Wikipedia as in some cases it is considered very unreliable.

I have read this and the parts I want to correct do not meet this paragraph. Thats why they should go out. Yes, you can find it in older material. You can also find that the world is flat in older material. The problem with the Gotlandic history is that there is very little in print except my extensive research. I am the only one that is researching on Gotlandic history for the last 20 years. It is very difficult to erase old written things that now are found to be wrong. When I came with my first book Gutarnas historia in 1990 my colleages at the Royal Museum in Stockholm and Vitterhetsakademin said that it would take at least 15 years before my new research would be accepted. Already after 5 years it was fully accepted, but how to get the old stuff out. I understand that you want international sources but it is very difficult in the case of Gotland. When we talk about the Astronomical calendars we have

Fil.Dr. Göran Henriksson has been attached to both the Dept of Astronomy and Dept of Archaeologi at Uppsala Paper presented at Conference: SEAC 8th. Moscow 2000 Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations ISBN: 5-02-008768-8  Editor(s): Prof. Tamila Potemkina & Prof. V. Obridko Place/Year: Moscow, 2002

It was a Norwegian who wrote when Visby became a World Hertage Place and he didn't know that Visby never joined the Hanse. Now were trying to get this word out of the World Heritage list. Stavgard (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"The reason why I bother to be here is that I want to improve Wikipedia as in some cases it is considered very unreliable."

Good. That is a yes. Thanks for the answer.

If you want to improve Wikipedia, the first thing you must do is to understand how Wikipedia works.

"I understand that you want international sources"

No, this is not the case. You aren't listening to us. You will have to listen. We are trying to explain to you how Wikipedia works, so that you can help. But you don't listen.

So next question: Are you willing to start listening to what we say? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am listening but I also realise that it seems impossible to comply with the rules as it only takes note of old outdated written information. Even if resent research shows that the old written sources are faulty. What suggestions do you have to correct the part of the Gotlandic history? Stavgard (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not listening. It is not impossible to comply with the rules. You are imagining rules that does not exist, instead of actually reading the rules.

Listen to this: If you want to contribute, you have to first understand how Wikipedia works.

So, new question: Do you want to understand how Wikipedia works? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have got good instructions from your collegue, and as the only recent published books on accepted Gotlandic history are my books. According to your rules they can't be quoted even if they are used all over the world and in the schools on Gotland. We are in a Moment 22 situation You couldn't accept that the Gotlandic symbol is a EYE not a RAM. When you see them together you see it immediately. For the Gotlanders it is an offense to call a EYE for a RAM Stavgard (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Do you want to understand how Wikipedia works? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How many times must I tell you that I understand how it works. Depending on how you read the rules the Gotlandic History can or can't be updated and disinformation taken away. "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." and you can only update Gotlandic history if it first has entered an encyclopidia. As we have not updated any encyclopidia with the latest research on Gotlandic history Wikipedia can't be updated. It is clear in the rules you want me to read However, it also says "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles" Here it is up to the editor what he or she accepts. Stavgard (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can find, it says: "All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia." In my interpretation I can refer to "2000 Jahre Handel und Kultur im Ostseegebiet - Gotland, Perle der Ostsee" ISBN91-972306-6-9 As far as I can see this book qualifies. If you accept this we can go further. Stavgard (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you search ISBN91-972306-6-9 on Google you will get 109 results Stavgard (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand how Wikipedia works. This sentence proves that: "Depending on how you read the rules the Gotlandic History can or can't be updated and disinformation taken away." That sentence is wrong. You don't understand how Wikipedia works.

"you can only update Gotlandic history if it first has entered an encyclopidia" - Incorrect.

The question is if you want to understand how Wikipedia works. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't read all I wrote. Am I right??? "As far as I can find, it says: "All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia." In my interpretation I can refer to "2000 Jahre Handel und Kultur im Ostseegebiet - Gotland, Perle der Ostsee" ISBN91-972306-6-9 As far as I can see this book qualifies. If you accept this we can go further. If you search ISBN91-972306-6-9 on Google you will get 109 results" Stavgard (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong. The question is still if you want to understand how Wikipedia works. I can try and explain it to you, but if you aren't interested, and if you aren't listening, it would be a waste of time. It does seem more and more likely that me trying to reach through to you is a waste of time, because you still aren't willing to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what I have misinterpreted in the rules Stavgard (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We asked you to read WP:V. And we meant all of it. Not just one little bit that you can then use to ignore everything else.

Wikipedia policies require claims to be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. I quote:

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Your self-published books do not fulfill these requirements. We can not use them. Do you have any questions on that? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted my contribution on Grooves. It is a more than acceptable source edited by 2 professors and published in Moskow? Stavgard (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I explained in the edit message. It was not unclear: "This article is neither about Stonehenge, nor Hyperboreans." Your addition was partly about Stonehenge and partly about Hyperboreans. It contained no information about the grooves at all. Questions on that?

Please also note that you should not revert a reversion like you did on that article. It is called edit-warring, and can lead to you being blocked. Changes should be *discussed*. If you were allowed to edit war everybody would just sit and revert each others additions all the time, instead of discussing it, and Wikipedia would suck.

It is important for you to understand that being right or wrong is irrelevant on Wikipedia, because everybody thinks they are right. You can't break Wikipedia rules just because you think you are right, because then everybody would do it. Wikipedia policies are here for a reason, then look like they do because they work. You must learn, understand and follow them. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the insert it starts with the Grooves at Hajdeby on Gotland and makes a comparion with other astronomical calendars. If you don't accept the findings at the international symposium in Moscow you have to specify your reasons. I don't think you are qualified for editing here!! If you are you should identify yourself

Stavgard (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It makes no such comparison. It quotes Göran Henriksson, claiming that a comparison is interesting. That's all. The rest fo the text is not about the grooves, but about Stonehenge, and then about roman writings on Hyperboreans. None of it has anything to do with grooves, even if you accept that the grooves are calendars.

You still are not interested in understanding how Wikipedia works. I do, and that makes me qualified to edit here. You don't and that means you are not qualified to edit here. That's how it works. The qualification for editing Wikipedia comes with understanding and accepting the policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you breaking the rules by reversing a fully legimate insertion? Stavgard (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are breaking the rules. We can discuss here why you want to stop a paper presented at an international symposium in Moscow and edited by 2 professors and published available for you to buy the book. It fullfills all the requirements.

We don't know how you are. Could be a terrorist. I think you should present yourself on your page. Stavgard (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who I am is irrelevant. I am not breaking the rules. I'm not trying to "stop" anything. I'm trying to explain to you who Wikipedia works, but you refuse to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning.

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I want an answer from a responsible person. Open:Future is an anonymous person who reverts my fully legimate entry.

He is censoring a paper presented at an Intenational Symposium in Moscow and edited by two professors Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. He refuses to answer why he is censoring this paper.

This person Open:Future thinks he can censure The Russian Academy of Sciences. I don't think it is Wikipedias policy to censure The Russian Academy of Sciences Stavgard (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a responsible person. Here is my answer:

I have explained why I reverted the additions. I am not censoring anything, I do not want to censor anything and I am not able to censor anything anyway. It is not Wikipedia's policy to censure The Russian Academy of Sciences or anything else. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case you have better reinstate my additions. As you don't want to identify yourself I can mention that you are the chairman of a shady suspicious society which aim is to censure everything you don't like and defame the authors. Stavgard (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot Swedish shady suspicious society Stavgard (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning re threatened outing

Stavgard, do not post edits like this and speculate on the identity of your fellow editors. This approaches outing and is not permitted. OpenFuture is not out of step with WP practice: most editors do not announce their real names. There is absolutely no requirement for editors to identify themselves, while there IS an absolute requirement to respect others' privacy. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a lot of crap. I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to censor a paper presented at an international symposium in Moscow and edited by 2 professors and published available for you to buy the book. It fullfills all the requirements. This is not about privacy. This is about not allowed censorship Stavgard (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What was the reason that your additions got reverted? It was stated both in the edit message, and on the talk page. Did you read any of these explanations? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I read the explanations. And what you say is a lot of lie. The paper in Moscow deals with astronomical calendars on Gotland and Stonhenge and their dating. To compare what happens in various places in the world at the same time is very important Stavgard (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I you don't accept the professors at the International symposium in Moscow who have edited the paper about the astronomical calendar, you should take the fight with them. I can't see anywhere that it is Wikipedia policy to refute such papers Stavgard (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours because of this attempted outing of another editor, despite my clear warning above. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This was my only possibility to draw your attention to OpenFuture censoring this document: Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations. I don't think it is the idea of Wikipedia to censure such documents. Stavgard (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I see that you have blocked me. I presume you did not see OpenFuture threat on me

I forgot Swedish shady suspicious society Stavgard (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here he accepts that he is going to censure everything that has to do with Gotland Stavgard (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you did not understand my explanations. I don't think I can make them clearer or simpler. Perhaps somebody else can, but this is beyond my ability. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand you explanations. You don't accept that in the symposium in Moscow they make comparisons between the Gotlandic astronomical calendars and Stonhenge. And this document is edited by 2 renowned professors and published by The Russian Academy of Sciences According to you such a document can't be published on Wikimedia as you are one of the few remaining people (the rest are dead) who thought the grooves are from Iron Age when it is internationally accepted that it is astronomical calendars from the Stone Age Stavgard (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I do accept that in the symposium in Moscow they make comparisons between the Gotlandic astronomical calendars and Stonhenge. That is uncontroversial.

I do accept that this document is edited by at least one renowned professors. Tamila Potemkina seems to have published almost nothing, and there is very little information about her. Maybe she indeed is (or was) a professor on the Russian Academy of Sciences, but it is hard for me to see how she can be renowned when she hasn't published anything. Vladimir N. Obridko however has published a lot, and is reasonable that he is renowned.

I do accept that the book is published by The Russian Academy of Sciences.

But all this is irrelevant, because: The text you added was not about archaeological grooves. It was about Stonehenge and Hyperboreans. You clearly do not understand this. You should ask somebody to explain it to you. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The basis for this article is an article in Fornvännen 1983 http://fornvannen.se/pdf/1980talet/1983_021.pdf This article was edited and approved by the previous editor of Fornvännen Fil Dr Jan-Peder Lamm Fornvännen is a highly reputable magazine Göran H. wrote the article in 1982. Jan-Peder Lamm edited the article but suggested that Göran H. should include a comparison with Stonehenge. Therefore did J-P L supply Göran H. with archaeological history about Stonehenge. Göran H. re-wrote the article with comparison with Stonhenge and the article was published in 1983.

Jan-Peder Lamm, born 27 October 1935, is a Swedish archaeologist. He received his PhD in 1973 from the University of Stockholm for a dissertation about a Migration Period elite cemetery near Drottningholm. Lamm taught archaeology at the University of Stockholm in the 1970s and then worked until retirement as Head Curator for the Swedish Iron Age at the Museum of National Antiquities in Stockholm. He is a member of the editorial board behind the journal Fornvännen and has taken active part in the Helgö project since the 1960s. Fornvännen (print: ISSN 0015-7813, online: ISSN 1404-9430) is a Swedish academic journal in the fields of archaeology and Medieval art. It is published quarterly by the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters in Stockholm, Sweden. The journal's contributions are written in the Scandinavian languages, English, or German with summaries in English. Fornvännen has the alternate title Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research. The editor in chief is Lars Larsson. Fornvännen began publication in 1906 when it replaced two earlier journals, Svenska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift and Vitterhetsakademiens Månadsblad. Early contributors included noted archaeologists Oscar Montelius and Hans Hildebrand.[1] Since 2000 it has an online version, since 2007 its first 100 annual volumes have been available on-line, and since 2009 Fornvännen is published as a delayed open-access journal with the online version of each issue appearing six months after the paper version. Fornvännen is an ERIH category B journal. According to Ulrich's, it is indexed in Anthropological Index Online, Anthropological Literature, British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (Online Edition), Nordic Archaeological Abstracts, and FRANCIS. It was previously also indexed in Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur and Linguistic Bibliography.[2] Henriksson, Göran. The grooves on the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea: a neolithic lunar calendar. Paper presented at Conference: SEAC 8th. Moscow 2000 Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations ISBN: 5-02-008768-8 Editor(s): Prof. Tamila Potemkina & Prof. V. Obridko Gotländskt Arkiv is the official yearbook for the Gotlandic Heritage Board, Föreningen Gotlands Fornvänner Stavgard (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Astronomical calendars on Gotland

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Astronomical calendars on Gotland. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Gotland astronomical calendars. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Gotland astronomical calendars - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Bazj (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gotland astronomical calendars

You agreed that it can be removed, so:

The article Gotland astronomical calendars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable fringe theory about a topic that already exists as Grooves (archaeology)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OpenFuture (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a deletion against Wikipedia rules

Please re-instate

Stavgard (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Grooves (archaeology), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Stavgard, I regard this edit as an attack on OpenFuture. I have told you several times that there is absolutely no evidence that OpenFuture is Martin Rundkvist - who in fact edits here under his own name. You are alleging sockpuppetry and this is disruptive unless you are willing to make a formal complaint at WP:SPI. I will block you the next time you disrupt Wikipedia in this way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Blocked, per the above warning and this edit. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User :Archaeoa - final warning

Stavgard, please this is your final warning. This user is clearly you - right down to the poor English, mis-spellings and single minded editing. Acknowledge this and freeze the account, or I will file a report at WP:SPI and/or WP:ANI. Your editing, despite a lot of attempts to help you, is now becoming seriously disruptive. Unless it improves I will start the process for removing you permanently from Wikipedia. Please note it is not your content that I object to, but your methods of editing here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I am at a complete loss. You wrote: I'm not sure what action I agreed to undertake that you can't do yourself, Stavgard? If the article can be improved and you can word your improvements in such a way that they are acceptable to other editors, go right ahead and make them. Now you are unblocked you can edit any page you like. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) And I entered the references necessary. Immediately our opponent deleted the references. Why do you think I am alone? We nowadays use SKYPE for our discussions and have during the last few weeks worked this out together in order to get a balanced article. There are many more valuable references we could be entered, but the article would be too clumsy. We all in the group have the same information on our SKYPE chat. You say the rest of the group can't register and defend our improvements of the article. We will then be accused of Socketpuppetry? Is there no way of stopping the opponent deleting our references which are needed to obtain a balanced article?

Stavgard (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, you yourself created a second account, drafted its user page from your Stavgard account and added your characteristic "censor/censure" mistake to confirm this is you. A few points: (1) groups may not have accounts. (2) you may not create multiple accounts to aid your cause. (3) my resources of good faith are now completely exhausted.

You talk about "our opponent" as if there were two of us and one of him. As I've repeatedly told you, I'm satisfied there genuinely are several editors opposed to you and not just one. There is no "we" between you and I: I have been trying for days to help and guide you, but that doesn't mean I agree with you; just that I think you should be given a decent chance. Well you have had your chance. I'm afraid you're on your own now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, yes I realise that Wikipedia can be manipulated.

This was written earlier.

You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If we all in the group register and approve of the improvements, is it then the headcount that counts? How many are on each side, or don't you have a head count?

Stavgard (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no group. There is no "we". There is no headcount. Wikipedia is not based on voting. The Illuminati does not exist, and Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning is most decidedly not the Swedish branch of the Illuminati. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, my reading of OpenFuture's post about the Illuminati was that it was a rather poor joke borne out of frustration and exasperation. It's not the kind of joke I would ever make myself; I don't think humour and sarcasm come across well on the internet. But I don't think for a moment that OpenFuture was actually admitting to the existence of a secret society dedicated to.... well, anything really. If he were a member of the such a secret society I don't think he'd reveal himself in this way. It was a bad joke. That's all. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard accused me of being the leader of a "shady Swedish organisation". I do quite often respond like above to people who accuse me of being part of conspiracies. As you say, nobody that is part of a conspiracy would admit to it. Therefore, people who accuse me of being a part of conspiracies usually realize that they are wrong as soon as you admit it. It is therefore usually a highly effective, if sarcastic, response to the accusations, and usually stops the accusations immediately. This is the first time out of many that anybody actually believed me. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, I missed a specific question from you above. You asked "If we all in the group register and approve of the improvements, is it then the headcount that counts? How many are on each side, or don't you have a head count?" The answer is at the section of Wikipedia describing the inelegantly named meatpuppetry. It says: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, and seek comments from other Wikipedians or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another." This means that no, you can explicitly not conduct an off-Wiki recruitment campaign and bring numbers here to outvote your opponents. Decisions here are indeed taken on consensus but this is trumped by adherence to policy; any number of people can vote on a topic, but if they are wrong on the application of policy they will not prevail. You haven't really tried to understand WP policy (or perhaps you have, but you don't like the policies you see...) and this is why you are having trouble making your voice heard. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, this was only a question as I felt it was the way it works. I have no intention to help anybody to be registered. However, I can't stop collegues to register who are being frustrated that my entries with approved references all the time are stopped.

I am by now quite fed up with Wikipedia. The only decent person I have met here is you. My academical discussions are on a much higher level. However, I was of the misconception that I could help improve some articles but the opposition to this is too strong.

Wikipedia could be a much more reliable place.

Stavgard (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stavgard for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Bazj (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, I asked you this question at the SPI investigation. You are of course under no obligation to answer but it would be helpful if you did. It's up to you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated sockpuppet accusations.

Here Stavgard yet again accuse me of being Mrund, this despite you being blocked *three times* for this already. I find it highly insulting to be accused of sockpuppeteering. Stavgard are clearly completely unable to learn even from repeated blocks and have no intention to help building an encyclopedia. He is only here to disrupt and destroy.

Stavgard is clearly WP:NOTHERE, is unable to learn from blocks and as such can be permanently banned. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote the following earlier: You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A point of correction to OpenFuture. Stavgard has not been blocked three times for making disruptive accusations of sockpuppetry; this was the reason for his third block (only). The first block was for a disruptive failure to respond to multiple attempts to engage in talk page discussion, and the second block was for disruptive editing in attempted outing of another editor after a clear warning not to do so. Where I do agree with you is that this exhibits a pattern of disruption which (if it continues) would lead to calls for a ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, then I misremembered. I should have checked. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture you wrote You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How should i interpret this. I took it as a threat. Am I wrong? Stavgard (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. It was a childish joke, an attempt to parody what was seen as your view of a shady organisation. It was meant to illustrate how ridiculous the idea is of secret cabals of editors conspiring behind closed doors to oppose you. You should interpret it as an attempt at humour which backfired. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept and find it demeaning that Mrund calls a professor in archaeology an amateur scholar. Obviously Mrund hasn't got a clue about his opposition. There are only som archaeologists that don't like the Gotlandic grooves. There are other archaeologists including professors in archaeology and archaeoastronomers that treat the matter in a scientific way. Therefore the wording in the article has to be a general wording. Mrund and his group have the right to have their belief. However, those who try to have a scientific approach must be treated with the same respect.

Stavgard (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Which professor is that? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Various professors both in Stockholm and Uppsala. Who are the people in your group? You of course know that Jonathan Lindström has not got an academic exam. If you have so little knowledge about what people think you should be more careful in your writing and allow are more general approach.

Stavgard (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)