User talk:Ove Raul

Important?

Hello! How important is this to you? Those of us who have worked quite a bit on that article before would like it the way it was before you started this, to avoid what we see as an unneccessary repetition of "Gustavus Adolphus" several times. Just as a matter of smoother English, as we see it. Did you notice that in the edit summary before you reverted this? And are you aware of the term WP:Edit war? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Swedish kings have been called "Gustavus Adolphus" in Latin and by a large number of writers also in "English". I would like to be clear in this text that this was Gustav II Adolph, not either of the other two. Nils Ahnlund in his great biography in English of the king did not call him "Gustavus Adolphus". If you look at the extensive discussion on the king's talk page about the name of the article, you'll find that there are substantial grounds to call him Gustav II Adolph in English, at least as a viable text alternative. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to be consistent; if the college is named Gustavus Adolphus College, it is not logical to describe it as being named for Gustav Adolf but for Gustavus Adolphus.

His name was not Gustav Adolph, in English he is called Gustavus Adolphus (like he wrote it himself) and in Swedish he is called Gustaf Adolf (modern Swedish spelling as used by contemporary Swedish royalty) or Gustav Adolf (common standard modern Swedish spelling). The form Adolph is never used and as I can see on the king's talk page everyone but you has agreed to call him Gustavus Adolphus in English. His name can be written as Gustavus II Adolphus to distinguish him from his later namesakes. Ove Raul (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Gustavus II Adolphus"? Now who's making up names? There have been no kings of Sweden named "Gustavus" so there can hardly be a "Gustavus II". I have 4 books in English where the standard English spelling "Adolph" is used, and the extensive discussions on the kings's article's talk page - also see its archives! - clearly show how many users other than I who have supported Gustav II Adolf for that article's name.

Consistent? How about

Gustav I of Sweden
Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
Gustav III of Sweden
Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden
Gustaf V of Sweden
Gustaf IV Adolf

How consistent is that?

You are also out cycling about "Gustaf Adolf (modern Swedish spelling as used by contemporary Swedish royalty)" - only royalty that lived after 1901 are correctly called "Gustaf" as that was the legal spelling of their names then. Confirmed here.

The English language is more sensitive to repetition than Swedish. I have tried to explain that, and also referred you to the first lines of the king's article, where it says widely known as Gustavus Adolphus (not only known as such) and where that name is not first. You have ignored both, though I have taken the time to address the issues you have brought up.

A big framed image on the wall of the college dean's office (I have been there) in English calls the man for whom the university was named Gustav II Adolph. But as a form of compromise, I am now going to change the edit on the Demitz article to show readers the interesting fact that the college was named for Gustav II Adolf (Swedish spelling as in the king's article's first line). May I ask you respectfully to leave that alone now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

It is usually considered a personal attack to falsely accuse another editor of "vandalism". Fair warning. An editor who leaves a reasonable edit summary citting WP guidelines can never be accused of vandalism. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop reverting other people's developments of articles then? If you think relevant links are not relevant, discuss it on the talk page and do not just delete them, because that I find to be vandalism even if there would be some guideline supporting it. You don't give up, do you? You just have to have everything which reminds people of Gustavus Adolphus' English name erased from Wikipedia. Ove Raul (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinon of what "vandalism" is would not be the same as Wikipedia's opinion, and behavior like that could get you blocked. Fair warning, again. You are new to English Wikipedia and should be receptive to help from those of us who are veterans. Would be nice to see more of that kind of an attitude, instead of all kinds of accusations, when you have been wrong above. I tried to help you by providing a link to the Swedish Royal Court's list of monarchs. Didn't work. I have nothing at all against the use of Gustavus Adolphus wherever it is appropriate. It isn't, every single time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are relating to Wikipedia guidelines which are not relevant under the circumstances when you are removing links from an article. You have made it quite clear that you think "Gustavus Adolphus" is the wrong name and that it should be replaced with "Gustav Adolph" - which itself is even more wrong, because noone ever called him that, not when he lived and not now. Ove Raul (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The irrelevant links you added are being discussed on talk there, let's not duplicate!--SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who started talking about it here instead of there. Ove Raul (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you are just as non-knowledgeable about Gustav Adolph as you were about the official spellings Gustav versus Gustaf. Yo're bluffing again now. David Williamson of Debrett's and Burke's Peerage, for one major expert, called all those three Swedish kings Gustav Adolph never anything else. I have daily access to a private collection of over 500 books on Swedish history. Want more examples? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another Gust. Adolph for you (note that only Gustav is abbreviated there, not Adolph). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Sorry, I had to report you for WP:edit warring here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you should be allowed to remove relevant information from an article on purely subjective grounds but I shouldn't be allowed to put it back? I don't believe it. Ove Raul (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to find out what Wikipedia's term edit-warring is all about before you try to argue that that is not what you are doing. The frequency of reverts is all it's about - nothing else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you removed them twice, I readded them twice. Have we both done the same amount of this edit warring then? Maybe you should report yourself too, then? Ove Raul (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youy'll find there's quite a diffence. I never accused you of "vandalism" but gave reasonable edit summaries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree those edit summaries were reasonable. Quite the contrary, they refered to guidelines not applicable for the kind of links you removed, which mean you tried to disguise the wrongful removal of links by refereing to guidelines, guidelines which were not being relevant at all. Ove Raul (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor left an edit summary that h/s considered reasonable, that edit should not be reversed with an accusation of "vandalism". That would seem to be clear to anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Please read the warning here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States flag flying days has been nominated for deletion

Category:United States flag flying days has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag flying days in Poland moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Flag flying days in Poland, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you find it to have to be a draft. It is a perfectly ready article, the text has just been moved from another article where it had never been questioned. Ove Raul (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Flag flying days in Poland

Hello, Ove Raul. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Flag flying days in Poland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Flag flying days in Poland (May 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dege31 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Flag flying days in Poland instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I think this should be merged with Polish National Flag Day

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Flag flying days in Poland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Flag flying days in Poland, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dege31 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ove Raul! 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! Dege31 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Flag flying days in Poland

Hello, Ove Raul. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Flag flying days in Poland".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music videos showing Sweden has been nominated for deletion

Category:Music videos showing Sweden has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mexican flag flying days

A tag has been placed on Category:Mexican flag flying days indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government agencies established in 1484 has been nominated for splitting

Category:Government agencies established in 1484 has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]