User talk:King of Arrogance2001

Danish titles

Hi. The decision to strip Joachim's children of their titles takes effect in 2023. Your edits are premature. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry then, i shall revert my changes and refrain from further actions. King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case you swing into action on this again in January, there is no such thing as Count of Denmark. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i'm quite sorry about that, but i accually have few questions now that we are on the subject? How shall we title the four royals, once they lose there Princely statues? And will they still be considered as part of the Danish Royal family? King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in their articles now, well sourced. However, if Margrethe II does not survive until 2023, the new monarch can change anything like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Moving articles (changing their names) should never - never - be done without discussion on the talk pages of those articles, unless a change is obviously uncontroversial and would be of no interest for anyone to discuss. We do not move articles based solely on our personal opinions, without giving other Wikpedians a chance to discuss the moves first. A main guideline for article names is that a name should be very well known in reliable sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i shall try to refrain from such actions in the future. King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contributions and cooperation. I must say your user name does not seem to fit your editing habits. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Hi! Moving Margaret I of Denmark to Margaret I of Scandinavia was reverted by another user, so if you believe the article should be at Margaret I of Scandinavia, you should go through the WP:Requested moves procedure, not move it yourself again. This allows users to discuss your proposal. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, but it's no longer necessary (see User talk:Aciram). Have a great day! King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clan Hamilton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marquess of Hamilton and Earl of Arran.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Gustav Jonson

Hello. Thanks for your edits to Gustav Jonson. However, Jonson wasn't Baltic-German. He was Estonian, both ethnically and by nationality. His parents were Estonian farmers Jüri and Mari Joonson (later, Jonson). ExRat (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, my mistake. I will be sure to fix it! King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein moved to draftspace

Thanks for creating Peter II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i didn't actually mean to publish the page just yet. And as such i do apologize for my mistake, and i sencerely thank you for moving it to drafts. I have fixed the perceived problems and i would like to ask you to review it, so that you may judge the pages quality. King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moonsund operation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keskvere.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

I must ask you never to make up article name forms which are unknown and/or unestablished through reliable sources, like you did with Gustaf "of" Carlson. I've tried to repair the damage this time, and I hope we can trust you never to do anything like that again. Also, less essential, but important, we do not add honorifics (Highness Sir) to info box headings. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day @SergeWoodzing, I must say that, although I do agree somewhat with some of the things you have to say here, I stil feel it imperative that i argue my case. For the first; the name you have currently given the artical is not at all accurate and goes against naming convation, as far as i can gather you have solely based this name on that of the Swedish name of the artical ''Gustaf Carlson (Greve)'', which is not, and has never been his name, and the reason the artical is named that way stems from an old naming convention that was used to differentiate between articals in the earlier days of wikipedia. A more accurate name would be that of either Count Gustaf Carlson or Gustaf, Count of Carlson, and that brings me to my seconed point; The reason why i named the artical the way i did was becuse of the fact that he was the "Count of Carlson", just as for instance the Dukes of Montagu, or the Prince (Fürst) of Putbus, same thing with the Counts Wrangel, Brahe and Barons Mannerheim. And thirdly, what do you mean about the honourifics in the box headings, that would mean that pages such as The Duke of Wellington, The Duke of Monmouth, Gustaf Mannerheim, The 13th Duke of Argyll, The 1st Duke of Hamilton, Klemens von (von=of) Metternich and many, MANY, more would be "violating" this. Therefore i find that to be a huge leap of logic and i find your argument against it to be invalid becuse of the aforementioned. Best wishes -- King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not correct. I own a historical-biographical library of over 600 volumes, most of them about Swedish royalty and their marital or extramarital families. I source my article work reliably. There has never been any person called "of Carlson". If you can find a reliable source to substantiate that there has, a reliable source in any language, English, Swedish, French, German, Danish, Norwegian, etc., I will concede. You cannot. If you had created an article called Gustaf Carlson of Börringe and Lindholmen that would have been OK, albeit unnecessarily long. The article name I used is also accurate. Sigvard Bernadotte, for example, was not Count Sigvard of Bernadotte but Count Sigvard Bernadotte of Wisborg. "Carlson" was not Gustaf's county. It's a patronymic which by royal decree became a noble surname.

If there are honorifics at the top of info boxes in a few articles that is definitely wrong. Such an error should always be corrected, not repeated. You added "[[His Highness]] [[Sir]]" which looked particularly ridiculous.

"Gustaf of Carlson" is something you have invented because it is your totally unsubstantiated opinion that it's a good name for that guy. So, because of this reply of yours, which only has your opinions, but nothing to back them up, must I ask you: Do you intend to continue editing article text on English Wikipedia according to your own unsubstantiated opinions? It's an important question. Please answer it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although i feel that you seem to be particularly rude and possibly irritated (sorry if my assumption is incorrect it's hard to interpret over text), i do not intend to base anything that is, an objectiv historical fact, on my opinion, and if you interpreted it in that way then i want to sincerely apologize since that is not my intent. I am here becuse i want to contribute my knowledge to the world, just like you, just like many others both before and after me. It is very importante that we remember that we are all human after all, we all make mistakes, so please in all our prior interactions we have been quite civil, and i would like to keep all future intractions so too.

But i do think this discussion about the name belongs on the articals talk page, so if you don't mind i would like to jokingly quote you "This belongs on the article's talk page not here." Mvh :) -- King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior belongs here. What we consider historical facts are of no use to Wikipedia unless we back them up with reliable sources. If we do not do that, and add article content anyway, we are misbehaving. You may have misunderstood some of the basics for Wikipedia work, though I do not doubt your good intentions. Article content should be on article talk pages, but, there too, our personal opinions, without reliable sources, are of little value and usually a waste of time. We are all here voluntarily. Many of us have little or no time to waste, even to the point where we might seem irritated at time-wasters. Frustration and irritation can be taken as rudeness. Sorry! Wikipedia's basic guidelines must be followed by all of us. Please answer the question! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT INTEND TO USE OPINION AS IF IT WERE FACT- have I made my self clear and understood yet? I've been agreeing with you, so i don't see the need to be so aggressive... You are acting like, and excuse my language 'a dusch' so please stop, i have only been trying to communicate in a civil and friendly manner, so please i would like you to do the same.

Och jag finner det litte hycklande att du gör mot mig vad du själv ber andra att inte göra, namnet på artikeln skall diskuteras på dess enskilda artikel, med vänliga hälsningar mig -- King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing article name or content here. We are discussing the fact that you add article content without reliable sources. I am not rude, an do not deserve any personal attacks, by asking you that, which is very important to Wikipedia and to your continued success as a Wikipedian. You continue, however, to avoid the issue of reliable sources, which is what this is all about, The reason I wrote to you here. Will you stop adding unsourced content to articles? It's a simple question. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i will, i hava allready answred you twice now, so i don't really see the point in further discussing this issue, so please have a nice day, and please do not reply any further.

Och om du tar mina hälsningar som ironiska vill jag att du ska veta att de är genuina och jag vill nu be er en mycket trevlig kväll och fortsatt lycka här på Wikipedia, mvh keep up the good work! -- King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023 (2)

Please do not make changes to what other users write on talk pages like you did here again though you have been asked not to do that. It is absolutely not allowed, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but although i understand that generally, as editing information out and or into another's reply can be really damaging, i don't really understand/and or see what difference it made in this case, i just want to categorize these conversations instead of what we have got now "January 2023 (2)", so i do understand the general principle but not really what difference it makes, really, in cases like this.

I do, however, acknowledge that i was wrong in this case and for that i do apologize. MVH -- King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We must all follow the guidelines without which we are not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. Guidelines are not to be assessed by us as sometimes valid, sometimes not important. I accept your apology and trust that you will not change anyone else's talk page entries again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein (February 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by InterstellarGamer12321 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:

More reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject need to be cited in the body of the article. There may also be some WP:BLUESEA because there currently a lot of wikilinks in the article.

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:Peter II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein 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.

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, King of Arrogance2001! 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! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 the submission 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.

RevinCBHatol (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RevinCBHatol (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]