User talk:GusGusBrus

Battle of Grimstad Bay, 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) 13:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GusGusBrus! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! > Tesseractic: talk? ✎ 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you have added information to articles, which have not been considered a consensus on our recent discussions. If you want anything changed on Wikipedia [that is disputed] then you should not change it until its agreed upon. At last in our recent discussion you said you were going to find a third-party to resolve the issue. This has yet to happen and therefore you **SHOULD NOT** change the article. If you want the articles to be changed, you should first resolve the issue, and since we cannot on our own resolve it, you should find a third-party who's willing to intervene. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles i changed isnt unsources and doesnt have anything to do with the other on-site discussion we had. Please don’t reverse my edits and call them unsourced but rather take it to my talk page. I’m gonna reverse your edits since you wrongly mix this up with the other discussion we had. Although feel free to find a third party.

Best of luck! GusGusBrus (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about the same thing; If a victory of Denmark-Norway can be called a Dano-Norwegian victory, without any mention of Norwegian participation.

Claiming any victory is Dano-Norwegian (which you have changed multiple articles to) without Norwegian/Dano-Norwegian is mentioned in the article and supporting sources, is what you have done, and also what we were discussing. To say this isn't the same issue if plainly wrong, and even if we consider it as such, then I would still fully disagree, and you would still need a third-party intervention to make such changes. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it would also be a breech of the guidelines to reserve my edit, in that you have the burden of proof and you made the change. Thereby for Wikipedia rules your claim should not be added until we have come to a conclusion on the talk page. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for a quick answer.

Your claim that Norwegians need to be spesifically mentioned is not needed, as your sources on multiple of them such as https://danmarkshistorien.dk/vis/materiale/trankebar already mention the fleet consisting of both Danes and Norwegians along with Danish and Norwegian ships. It also describes the colony as "Dano-Norwegian" which would itself make it right to put the result as "Dano-Norwegian" since the result section in the infobox should show which combatant claimed victory, and possibly extra information if needed. Your claim that there wasnt any Norwegians involved is therefore a negative claim, since its different from the default that there would be both Danish and Norwegian intervention as they had a combined fleet. It is also a known fact that "Denmark" or "Danish" is often used to refer to both nations during this period as shown in https://web.archive.org/web/20060212020313/http://www.sa.dk/ra/brugearkivet/rasaml/foer1848/danskekanc/B0274.htm. Therefore you would need a source stating that for some reason the navy was split up and that there for some reason where only Danes (?) Which would differ from the default.

Hope to hear from you soon, GusGusBrus (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No of the sources describing the engagements you have changed says they were “dano-norwegian” yet rather as Danish. And just because the colony was owned by Denmark-Norway doesnt mean we now should Call everything it possesed and did “dano-Norwegian” should we now also Call the Danish East India Company for the “Dano-Norwegian East India Company”? By No means. Because that Company is described in sourced as danish, just like the engagements. Again for the 10th time, we have already gone over this, and if you want it changed contact a third party. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read what i just wrote? Denmark or "Danish" was often the way Denmark-Norway and its people was refered to as. Same way the wars against Sweden was mostly called "Dano-Swedish war". Either way the name of the trade company is irrelevant and i wont discuss that further. You have yet to really reply to what i sent in the message above your most recent message. GusGusBrus (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is My last reply to you without a third-party. Per Wikipedia articles you should write What your sources say, if the sources say Danish, even if they imply Norwegians, it should be described as Danish in the article and supporting infobox. That os how it is. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And sources say that they had a combined fleet? Either way this would be irrelevant as Denmark-Norway is the combatant either way. GusGusBrus (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Lisbon (1109), 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!

Toadspike [Talk] 22:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Formentera (1109), 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) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GusGusBrus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Denmark under Norwegian rule, 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) 18:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GusGusBrus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Norwegian expansion in Finnmark, 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) 00:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden, 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!

OhHaiMark (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in your Draft:Norwegian Empire, you added the norwegian antarctic territory as being part of a Norwegian empire. I have never seen the Queen Maud Land being described as part of a Norwegian empire. You should provide a source when adding controversial information. E4t5s.new (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is often described as a part of the "Modern Norwegian empire" (along with Svalbard, Jan Mayen and the Bouvet Island), the same way Denmark is with the Faroe Islands and Greenland for reference. The page is a Disambiguation page therefore does not use direct citing or a reference section.

Hope this helps! GusGusBrus (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gusgus, when an editor has questioned the validity of a claim, it is up to the editor who contributed the claim, to prove it with a source, even in disambiguate pages, as per Wikipedia:BURDEN. Also, there is no actual “modern Norwegian empire”. It is also not in any way the same as the Danish Realm. The Danish realm is not even considered an empire. E4t5s.new (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt about what its scholary recognized as, its a page for what it might refer to. I have seen multiple videos and articles online which have refered to it as such. The article even clearly states that the term might refer to, not that its neccesarily a scholary factual term to use for said.

Hope this helps! GusGusBrus (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show a source. E4t5s.new (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read my last message. It clearly fits into a disambiguation article. GusGusBrus (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not just send me the source claiming it to be an empire? E4t5s.new (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you examples of it being called such if thats what you are asking about when you say "source". If you are thinking about a scholary one i will say it again, it isnt required for such an article.

Hope this helps! GusGusBrus (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DAB pages are not excluded from WP:Verifiability, it's just that the references are not supposed to be added on those pages, but to the target articles or on the talk page. See WP:Burden. DAB pages are referred to in footnote [d]. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GusGusBrus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Denmark under Norwegian rule".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GusGusBrus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sweyn Estridssons Rebellion, 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) 19:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian 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 fix your footnotes; Kennedy (1996) is not listed in the bibliography section. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Battle of Ibiza (1109) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I have resubmitted now, could sadly not find back to the source i used for the island to later on get under the Almoravid dynasty. I have removed it and resubmitted.

Thanks! GusGusBrus (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GusGusBrus! 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! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only used reliable and scholarly sources? Which of them weren’t reliable? GusGusBrus (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid the article Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden you wrote may be a problem under our copyright policies, since the text seems very closely paraphrased from Sundberg's book. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch.

The article has been replaced with a notice of these copyright concerns that includes directions for resolving them. If the material can be verified to be compatibly licensed or public domain or if permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution. If you can resolve it that way, please let me know if you need assistance with those directions. Otherwise, so that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten; there is a link to a temporary space for that purpose in the instructions which now appear in place of the article. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

(This above part of this message is based on a boilerplate from WP:Close paraphrasing, underlining is mine)

In my opinion, this remains a copyright violation despite the effort—which I appreciate—you've put into making the language and sentence structures independent of the source. However, much of the basic structure of the text remains as in Sundberg 2010. There's the page WP:FIXCLOSEPARA which gives some techniques for avoiding close paraphrasing. Essential points are that one should try and distance oneself from the sources by taking notes, and also use multiple sources, which could be synthesized into a new text. It is difficult to work with only Sundberg's text, which is quite terse. The above Signpost article also has some hints.

Let me know if you have questions about this. Also, sorry for sending this message so late, should've done it immediately after the nomination. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What changes would you want in spesific? Sundberg's structuring is in a chronological order and is one of the very few and limited sources i have found going into detail about this war. Should i delete facts or scrap the chronology concept? Im confused on what to do. GusGusBrus (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most important thing is to find more sources, otherwise there is no way to make it independent of Sundberg, or even to understand Sundberg's text.

• Bo Jonsson's Riksarkivet bio might be useful.
• Michael Nordberg's I kung Magnus tid (1995) is generally a good source about this period, if you can find it in a local library.
• The Finnish National Biography has an article about King Albert focused on his businesses in Finland, Albrekt Mecklenburgilainen. (This might not be too useful for this period)
• V.A. Nordman's "Albrecht, Herzog von Mecklenburg, König von Schweden" (1938) should have a lot of information, but can be difficult to find. (and is in German)
• I would expect books such as Nordstedts Sveriges historia : 1350-1600 say something about these events, but they might be covered with a brief remark.

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything, i will definitely try to improve! GusGusBrus (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved away from mainspace, ill work on it from there. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GusGusBrus. If there are copyright violations, that is not allowed in any namespace. And pages that have been nominated for deletion should not be moved. Instead, you can recommend in the discussion that it be moved to user space or draft space. (But, to reiterate, moving wouldn't fix copyright issues.) As it says in the banner, "Please do not remove this notice or restore blanked content until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk, or volunteer response agent." SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im a volunteer response agent and i have the pages of the book Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Norwegian-Wendish War, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Sweyn Estridssons Rebellion, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ibiza (1109), 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!

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GusGusBrus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Saint Olaf's Reconquest of Norway, 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) 12:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GusGusBrus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Raid on the Balearic Islands (1109), 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) 22:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show the source for your recent edit on Denmark-Norway? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be linked in the citation. Hope this helps! GusGusBrus (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. The cite that is linked only shows the book at the Abtract. In order to read the book you need "Requires Authentication". Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally used used google scholar for the part which confirmed what i cited, you could probably find it there. Hope this helps! GusGusBrus (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it on an accesable online website, then the link you use in your source should reflect that. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content from De Gruyter is accessible via Wikipedia Library, and even if it were not, that would not be a reason to remove the reference. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, i found it on google books, and it does not support his point. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]