User talk:Labsahn

Gallery mischief

Hello! If you would like to add this info again please do so with reliable sources next time, and please do not screw up the images and gallery. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved from my talk page: --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)] "Sorry, but what exactly is your explanation for deleting all my changes at Oldenburg? You deleted the images of the ancestral seat in Oldenburg, of the coat of arms, and the two maps showing the duchy of Oldenburg. Also, you deleted the info that Oldenburg castle has been the ancestral seat of the house. And you deleted the info about the reigning dates of the house over their ancestral region. Labsahn (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)"[reply]

What I noticed was that (1) you added text with no source, which we don't do; and (2) that you screwed up the image gallery of house members by moving two images there that did not fit in. As I wrote above, feel free to re-add whatever you wish, but your text must have sources and you can't just move some images to a gallery to get them out of your way for new ones. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new gallery for your images and captions.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "obvious info" in Wikipedia articles. Everything must be verified by the addition of sources. You cannot add text and then ask & expect someone else to add the sources for you. We all have had to learn how to do that you, I, everyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If so then may i ask where the source for this sentence in the introduction is:

The dynasty rose to prominence when Count Christian I of Oldenburg was elected as King of Denmark in 1448, of Norway in 1450 and of Sweden in 1457. The house has occupied the Danish throne ever since.

This is far more difficult to verify than Oldenburg Castle being the ancestral seat. Labsahn (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the wrong track. Your responsibility is to add sources to new text that you wish to include. Facts that are already in there can be marked ^{[citation needed]} if we think they have been insufficiently sourced. I do that at times. The cases you brought up are well-sourced, however, in the articles about Christian I and Margrethe II & everyone in between, so I wouldn't bother there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if i re-insert that Oldenburg Castle is the ancestral seat of the house and that it is located on the bank of the Hunte River in Oldenburg, you would again delete it? Labsahn (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text you deleted. It is all so obvious. Please tell me what you think, has to be sourced to be inluded.

The ancestral seat of the house was "Aldenburg Castle" (now Oldenburg Palace) on the shores of the Hunte River in Oldenburg, a city with a population of around 173,000, located 50 km/30 mi both west of Bremen and south of the Jade Bight of the North Sea. The house traces its origins to the "Osnabrücker Nordland", a landscape north of Osnabrück.

The house originally ruled over the County of Oldenburg (since the early Middle Ages), the Duchy of Oldenburg (1774-1811), and the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg (1815-1918). The grand duchy was converted into the Free State of Oldenburg in 1918, and in 1946 it was merged with the Prussian Province of Hanover, the Free State of Brunswick, and the Free State of Schaumburg-Lippe to form the federal state of Lower Saxony of which Hanover was made the capital. Labsahn (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely needs sources. I am not saying it's false or irrelevant, but lots of poeple make up fantasy text and even use links when doping so. That's why we need sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the part of the sentence "The ancestral seat of the house was Oldenburg Castle on the shores of the Hunte River in Oldenburg need a source? First, a source that it is the ancestral seat, then a source that it's on the Hunte river shores and then that the Hunte is in Oldenburg? Or how is that meant. Labsahn (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what i ask myself too is, if you are really interested in the article being good, then why are you yourself not interested in the insertion of that content. Most probably, it would be very easy for you to add sources. As the article is now, it can not be labelled as good. As the situation is now, it provokes the feeling that you are happy to having been able to delete the new content because you think the article is better without it. It would be nice if you could clarify that. Also i'd like to know which facts are so obvious and clear, that they do not need sources. For example, i can't imagine that a claim like Paris is the capital of France needs a source. Labsahn (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can improve the article by adding that information (not about Paris) with a source or two. Other than that, it looks to me like you are arguing mostly for the sake of arguing, I don't do that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "The cases you brought up are well-sourced, however, in the articles about Christian I and Margrethe II & everyone in between, so I wouldn't bother there."

So in other words it's ok if the facts are sourced in the articles they are linked to. Almost everything i wrote is linked to the respective articles where it should be sourced. Why is the one thing a problem then and the other is not. Labsahn (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

A have asked you twice to stop writing on my talk page. Your continuing to do so anyway can be seen as harassment. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, insert the text again, too, please. Labsahn (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]