Jump to content

User talk:Tinkaer1991

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2409:4070:8e8d:3585:593a:b50c:71da:76b0 (talk) at 10:00, 12 April 2024 (→Your submission at Articles for creation: Danish rescue mission to Pipli: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Draft:Dano-Mughal War (1642-1698), may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello! Please do not revert without using an article's talk page. That's how we gain consensus for changes, not by putting our POV in edit summaries. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh so sorry mb. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023 (2)

This is absolutely not a minor edit. Neither are your other edits. What do you mean by marking them as minor? Makes your intentions look very questionable. Do you really not know what a minor edit is? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mark them as minor, for the textural size of added information. Whats the relevance? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. Please read our guideline! Any edit that changes content in the slightest way is not minor. The relevance is that many editors do not look at the minor edits of other users, such as typos, punctuation, commas, capital leters, etc. Thus we can get away with changing article content that way, and that's considered cheating. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alr thanks for the information Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Christopher of Bavaria. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How was my source not reliable, may i ask?. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source must support the material explicitly, as explained at Wikipedia:No original research. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, i used the automatic citation genorator to make the source, which gave a slightly wrong one. The book i used is called Negotiating the North; Meeting-Places in the Middle Ages in the North Sea Zone. And at page 117, it states " On New Year’s Day 1443 he was crowned in Ribe Cathedral and proclaimed as Denmark’s archirex (Lat.) or ‘Arch King’" Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing there about "full title" or "by the grace of God" or the specific term "archirex of Denmark" used in a formal style. Nor do I see anything about the unsourced, trivial, undue weight, excessive detail of "King of Sweden and Norway, the Wends and the Goths, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria." What part of the current content, sourced to da:Kurt Villads Jensen and da:Michael Bregnsbo is wrong? DrKay (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other realms and titles of his style were on the article beforehand, I simply changed king of Denmark to archirex of Denmark acording the first source. I can put the archirex title and explain it under his full title, if that is more correct. But he still was infact Denmark's arhirex and not also the other realms archirex, acording to my second source. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're using an incomprehensible anachronism like archirex of Denmark (one word in Latin, unknown in English, plus two words in English) shows us that you will not or cannot understand how the English language is (to be) used on English Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope the matter has now been settled once and for all (on the article's talk page), and that you will take the advice we've given you about sources and language into account in your future work. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should it then be Archirex Daniae? or Arch King of Denmark? or maybe you have a third option? Simply curious.- Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arcicle is OK now. Other than that, we should not mix languages. However, even if a translation seems obvious it should not be used in a Wikipedia article without a source. I trust you have understood that now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you didnt answer my question tho, how would you write the title?. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I wouldn't. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Personal union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duchy of Estonia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im so sorry. I didn t notice it was a Disambiguation link, i ofc meant the Danish duchy of Estonia. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm currently working on some pages regarding Dano-Hanseatic relations, along with some of the wars they fought. You appear to be into in this topic and I was curious if you could potentially review some of my articles to check for accuracy?

I also edited the page on Denmark-Norway as well, if you want to review that one as well.

Also, if you find any major conflicts between Denmark and the Hansa, if it fits, perhaps you could link it to the Danish-Hanseatic Rivalry page? Thanks! Gankbank789 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i love the new article and it had really needed its own wikipedia page. I'll review the Danish-Hanseatic Rivalry, the Danish-Hanseatic War (1361-1370) and also the edit on Denmark-Norway tommorow. But keep up the good work. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have made a sandbox, at User:Tinkaer1991/sandbox with small changes in the article. Look into it and let me hear what you think. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey it looks good! feel free to replace the current article with your version Gankbank789 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Brissarthe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dano-Mughal War (1642-1698) has been accepted

Dano-Mughal War (1642-1698), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, God bless you Tinkaer1991 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Conquest of Gotland (1676) (February 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by The Herald were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Tinkaer1991! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crown Prince Frederik Land (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by The Herald were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template: Campaignbox Dano-German Conflicts (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Relativity was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Except for the infobox, your submission is blank. Please add content to it.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
‍ Relativity 22:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I dont quite understand what i did wrong? Can you please elaborate, and tell me how to fix the issue? For now i have written af short describtion in the article, if it is that you wanted.
Best regards - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dano-Dutch War (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Broc was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please check out Help:Shortened footnotes: you need to add a full reference to the books you cite with shortened footnotes. At the moment, it is impossible to know which books you used to write this page.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Broc (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cattle War has been accepted

Cattle War, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Broc (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I accepted your article Cattle War for mainspace. I tagged some issues in the article (I couldn't understand a couple sentences, and one of the cited book needs a specific page reference added), it would be great if you could fix them. Thanks a lot and happy editing! Broc (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The e-book is from Google Books, which only gives a small section visable for the viewer. It also doesnt give the accual page number. But from the link connected to the reference, i counted the pages to be 12 and 13. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you say what sentences you couldnt understand? Maybe i should rewrite them Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dano-Dutch War has been accepted

Dano-Dutch War, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes (talk / cont) 06:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing victories

The right way to refer to victories of Denmark-Norway is Dano-Norwegian, not Danish victories. Stop changing these as its not correct. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no Norwegain participation in the battle, it should not say "Dano-Norwegain victory" remeber the term Denmark-Norway did'nt exist when Denmark and Norway was in a union and should not be considered an arguement for calling it a "Dano-Norwegain victory" Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its the term used now? It’s also used in multiple battles and wars which had no danish interference. And it used to be called the “Twin Realms”, but Denmark-Norway is now the correct way historians refer to the union. Same goes with Dano-Norwegian. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, even though the nation is now reffered to as Denmark-Norway, it does not mean norwegians participaterd in every confrontation, the danish participated in. If Norwegians are not mentioned in the article, they should not be included in the result same goes for Danes Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats like saying a Soviet victory should be Georgian or Armenian victories if they were the ones fighting, doesnt make any sense, right? Its the nation of Denmark-Norway, which is refered to with the term «Dano-Norwegian». Seems like you just have bias GusGusBrus (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the difference is not Soviet is not a nationality, its a form of government. Again the protocol for this is that nothing that is not said in the article should be included in the infobox, without a source. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still my point stands, do you not have a source Denmark-Norway fought in those battles? Your arguments are empty since you think Im talking about Norwegians or Danes specifically fighting in said battle, but Im just saying you are changing it to a wrong term, which you are GusGusBrus (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont argue with me, If Norwegains are not mentioned participating in the battle on the article, THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED, See Help:Infobox Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the nation, which fought and claimed victory lol GusGusBrus (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the nation is now reffered to as denmark-norway, doesnt mean all people who lived there were "dano-norwegains" if the article only mentions danes and not norwegains, participating in the batle, the victory should be "Danish" and not "dano-norwegian". Again stop arguing when the official manual agrees Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dano-Norwegian army/navy consisted of both Danes and Norwegians, while often referred to as Danish in old documents, doesnt change the fact that there is little to no possibility that there weren’t any Norwegians fighting. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again they may have been norwegaisn fighting, but if that is not mentioned in the source, you cannot include it in the results. So if you are really desperate, find a source stating norwegains directly partecipated in the battle. Write it in the article. And then you can change the result Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nation of Denmark-Norway claimed victory with an army/navy which consisted both of Norwegians and Danes, but was usually referred to as Danish, since it was under the danish crown. Either you don’t know much about this subject or you are very arrogant. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you are now making claims that is unsourced. So i would like a source for your statement. Also even if true, there would still be needed a source for teh specific participation of Norwegians in the battle, No one should read between the lines. I am reversing your edits, where norwegians arent mentioned as particiåating in the battle, That is per Help:Infobox, if you disagree, find a source that supports your opinion. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but make sure to change the Norwegian ones aswell, since Im guessing you arent biased GusGusBrus (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am not going to change every battle, im only reversing the ones you did. If you want to do the same with Norwegian battles, do that yourself Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Denmark-Norway there you can see that Dano-Norwegian is the right demonym for the union GusGusBrus (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t respond with a valid reason to why you would incorrect the demonyms, I am going to reverse the edits you made. GusGusBrus (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Firstly, please dont reverse my edits, without a consensus, just because i dont answer in 4 days should not give a casus beli to revert my changes (See:Wikipedia:There is no deadline).
For the issue, denonyms should not be the authority of the text in the result, in these cases writing "Dano-Norwegain victory" to a battle not involving Norwegains is highly misleading, as for the official wikipedia protocol, the infoboxes should only and always include material "Already cited elsewhere in the article" (See:Help:Infobox)
If you cant provide sources for your claim, nor accept the official protocol and guideline, then you should highly question your reason for even contributing to this encyclopedia...
Best regards! - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats like calling a british victory for Scottish or Welsh victory, you are just using the wrong demonyms as shown by Denmark-Norways Wikipedia page. The demonyms are supposed to show the result for the victorious nation who won. Seeming as Denmark-Norway was one nation at that time and the Dano-Norwegian army consisted both of Norwegians and Danes there wouldnt be any reason to why it would be needed to be mentioned. Just admit your wrong, and stop spreading your personal bias.
Hope to hear from you soon! GusGusBrus (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be my last time responding to you.
Firstly please dont use any ad hominem against me (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) as this is the official guidelines, so please let's keep this mature. Also i dont see how this fits any bias? My viewpoint goes for all battles, Danish, Norwegain or anything else.
Secondly your comparison doesnt make sense, as i see it? British is an accual identity of a geographical area (Britian), while the term Dano-Norwegain, has never been used as such. Dano-Norwegain is at most a language for the Danish speaking population of Norway, and was never used as a national identity except in rare occasions by those.
As per the guidelines the infobox should include material already cited elsewhere in the article, until that is the case, your point cant be implemented.
Best regards Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Invasion of Gotland (1676) has been accepted

Invasion of Gotland (1676), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TheBritinator (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinkaer1991, just wanted to mention a few things that preceded me accepting this review:
  • Please remember to put full stops and correct punctuation on the sentences, I am assuming you are not a native English speaker but I had to fix this on quite numerous occasions so keep that in mind.
  • You don't need to link everything, most things can be assumed per WP:OL.
  • I have marked some areas as needing clarification or citation. More importantly, the article is currently marked as an orphan. Please try to address this when you can.
Overall, pretty decent article though there are things that could be improved for future work. Good luck. TheBritinator (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Royal Life Guards' Mutiny has been accepted

Royal Life Guards' Mutiny, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture help

I have a picture for the “cattle war” article, but I can’t seem to upload it. Can you help me? Or just upload the picture? It’s called: VAUPELL(1870) p2.087, Motiv zum Jahr 1750 E4t5s.new (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for asking. I have now uploaded the image on the page. You are free to replace it or rewrite the describtion.
PS, i have noticed your contributions on List of wars involving Denmark, please remember that when you add another war, you should also correct the number of wins/losses/inconclusive at the top of the page.
Best regards - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do 👍 85.191.184.179 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template: Campaignbox Dano-German Conflicts (March 17)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by User4edits was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is Articles for Creation, not Templates. I am making a mention of this draft on submitter's behalf at WP:RT.
Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 09:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Dano-Mughal Treaty has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Dano-Mughal Treaty. Thanks! TheBritinator (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tinkaer1991v2

Hi, can you edit this account's userpage with your main account in order to prove you own this account and that this is not an impostor? Thanks, Prodraxis (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes ofc Tinkaer1991 (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you did that just now. Thanks for doing this and if you need help with anything else feel free to ask me anytime. Best, Prodraxis (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question on how to create templates? When i create a new template i can only figure out to to that on AfC drafts, which seems to be wrong. Where do i create new templates? - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can directly create new templates by placing "Template:" in front of the title of the template you want to create and then entering wikitext as necessary. Regards, Prodraxis (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do i directly create them? It should not be created as a draft right? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to create the template from your main or alt account? Prodraxis (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my main account Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are Autoconfirmed, you should be able to directly create templates (not through AfC) in the template namespace (e.g. if I want to create a template titled "MyTemplate" I would go to Template:MyTemplate and enter in wikitext). Is the title of your template listed on the local MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or the the global title blacklist? The title blacklist could prevent pages from created even by autoconfirmed users, and it is possible that the blacklist is interfering with your ability to create a template even if you did nothing wrong. Prodraxis (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think my template is blacklisted, just that i didnt know where to create it. But i think you have made me understand it now, so much thank you! Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Always happy to help. Prodraxis (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Sorry to disturb, but I noticed on your draft on the Danish intervention in the Thirty Years War, you added Sweden to the Danish side, can you explain how Sweden was involved, or are you counting the Siege of Stralsund (1628) as Swedish participation?


Thanks Gvssy (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden and Denmark were official allies and sweden participated, in yes, the Siege of Stralsund. Right now, im not done with the infobox and will probably make a note staking when sweden was apart of the war Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Loss of the St. Jacob has been accepted

Loss of the St. Jacob, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

14 novembre (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New section regarding the notability on Talk:Action of 19 Febuary 1619

I’ve opened a discussion on the notability of Action of 19 Febuary 1619 that I wanted to discuss with you to see if it could be remedied. You might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide to be helpful. Looking forward to discussing with you further on the talk page — microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 02:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Infobox Result issue

Since we were being uncivil in the last one I created a new one here, mainly about Draft:Battle of West Kay. Your sources say the ships were a part of the Dano-Norwegian fleet/navy, and that the nation who claimed victory was Denmark-Norway who uses the demonym Dano-Norwegian. (Not to be confused with the language Dano-Norwegian) We have talked about this off-site where you have stated that you would fulfill my request where I asked for a source you said you had when I asked for a source specifically saying that there was only Danes fighting in this battle, as there is no reason to believe so because the sources mentioned it being apart of a unified fleet/navy between the two nations of the Dano-Norwegian realm. Which needs to be specifically mentioned in the sources. GusGusBrus (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recall your source request? Also what evidence do you have that the demonym of Denmark-Norway was Dano-Norwegian? In my understanding, Dano-Norwegian refers to things shared or in common with the two nations during their real union, and is generally used in the context of Norwegians or Danish-born Norwegians in service or allegiance to their king. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it’s used and refered to in the sources multiple times as «Dansk-Norsk» (In Norwegian and Danish sources), «Dano-Norwegian» or «Danish-Norwegian». Also used commonly in the Denmark-Norway article where it even directly states thats the demonym. Either way even if you have the wrong interpretation of the term, its still says in the sources about the ships that they were in the shared fleet between the two union kingdoms. GusGusBrus (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to confuse me?
What was "used and refered to in the sources multiple times as «Dansk-Norsk» (In Norwegian and Danish sources), «Dano-Norwegian» or «Danish-Norwegian»."?
Also the Denmark-Norway article doesn't provide any references on it being the actual demonym of the nation?
And, yes, ofcourse the ships Lougen and Den Aarvaagne were apart of the Danish-Norwegian navy? What are your points, and what reliable sources do you have for Dano-Norwegian being the demonym of the whole realm? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the first question I’m mainly talking about the navy/fleet and how the ships are described.
Secondly, it has its own section in the infobox. (Denmark-Norway)
Thirdly, exactly my point? The Dano-Norwegian navy and nation fought and claimed victory?
Lastly I don’t have an exact source on that, except for that being used the most commonly in the sources. Which seems like the most reasonable to use since that’s what’s in the sources (?) GusGusBrus (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples of Lougen and Den Aarvaagne being described as Dano-Norwegian in the sources of the article, if that is what you are claiming? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad if I explained that wrongly, I meant they were described to be apart of the Dano-Norwegian fleet, I of course don’t disagree that the ships were Danish produced. GusGusBrus (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course they were apart of the Dano-Norwegian fleet, though that does not make them Dano-Norwegian? The reason the Dano-Norwegian navy is called so, is because it was shared between the two kingdoms. Calling a victory "Dano-Norwegian" merely because the vessels in combat was apart of a navy shared by the kingdoms, I consider vague. Of course it should be considered Dani-Norwegian if there was an actual Norwegian presence in the battle, which in my understanding and the sources used in the article doesn't seem to be the case. Thereby it would also be misleading to include such ethnicity in the infobox. In contrast inboxes are supposed to be clear and simply and mentioned things already said in the article, which I see your proposal as a break off. Hope this helps, best regards. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt "shared" between the two kingdoms, since the two kingdoms were under one king and nation. The fleet consisted both of Norwegians and Danes and should be therefore be included in the result. (Also it was the Nation of these two unified kingdoms which claimed victory) And as sources and even the article for Denmark-Norway either uses the demonym or states that it was the demonym used for the nation, i dont see any reason why this should be an exception? Wouldnt really matter which of the two kingdoms produced the ship? The nation and people fighting would still be the ones to claim victory, which were Dano-Norwegian soldiers fighting for the nation of Denmark-Norway, for Dano-Norwegian sovereignity.
Hope to hear from you soon! - GusGusBrus (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what nation "produced" the ship? The ships are described as Danish in the sources and the commander was Danish. There may likely be Norwegian participation in the battle, but since that is not mentioned, it should not be included. This is how wikipedia operates.
Also the Dano-Norwegian navy was indeed shared? The navy did not have a Norwegian and Danish branch, as the armies of the nation did. Rather the navy was shared between the two Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, yet that should not be an excuse to include Norwegian in the infobox, if not mentioned in the article. Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious that a shared fleet with both Norwegians and Danes serving and under both kingdoms is enough information to include Norwegian participation? You would need a source which stated that it was only Danes to deny that, even if the commander and ship was Danish. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not. If only "Danish" is mentioned and described in the article and supporting sources, then only Danish should be described in the infobox. Seems pretty simple?
Looking at our current and previous discussions, I don't see us coming to an agreement. If you want this proposal to go further, it would be a good idea to ask a third party. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ship and commander is mentioned to be Danish, although you are completely ignoring the nation which participated and that it was the Dano-Norwegian fleet who fought with both Danes and Norwegians in service? GusGusBrus (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already represented my point. If you want this proposal to go further, it would be a good idea to ask a third party. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested one. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your RFC tag. That’s not to say an RFC is inappropriate, but please consider WP:RFCBEFORE before opening a new one. Ideally you should have a clear, simple and neutral question (eg, “should X be Y?”), and it should be posted to an appropriate forum, or at least to its own new section or subsection. There, you can certainly link to this and other discussions (eg, “see P and Q for previous discussion”). Once that neutral forum has been created, you can each present your POVs in response to the question, with evidence or whatever you like. In short, it’s called a request for comment, but it’s a little more formal than that, and it’s just more respectful to uninvolved editors (like me) if you lead us into the debate with a clear goal, rather than expecting people to just read through all your previous comments to catch up.

Prior to, or instead of an RFC, you may consider posting to relevant Wikiprojects where knowledgeable and interested editors may be able to weigh in (you might just post a new section on the Wikiproject talk page notifying editors of this discussion). If you only need a third opinion from a non-expert to settle a disagreement, WP:3O may be of help (there is guidance there on how to request). Best of luck — HTGS (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of West Kay has been accepted

Battle of West Kay, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TheBritinator (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:MyTemplate

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, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:MyTemplate, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Tinkaer1991. Thank you for your work on Siege of Dansborg (1644). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and God bles you too. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Danish rescue mission to Pipli

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

2409:4070:8E8D:3585:593A:B50C:71DA:76B0 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinkaer1991&oldid=1218542733"