User talk:Schildknappe

Battle of Wopławki moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Battle of Wopławki, does not have enough sources and citations 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. TheImaCow (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow: Hello TheImaCow,

All right.

Best regards, Schildknappe (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stenckel von Bentheim

Hello Schildknappe,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Stenckel von Bentheim for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 00:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew nyr: Hello Andrew nyr,

The article about Stenckel von Bentheim placed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenckel_von_Bentheim is tagged for deletion.

I do not mind. I can delete it myself but do not know how. Can you write me how can I do it?

Best regards, Schildknappe (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Stenckel von Bentheim

Hello, Schildknappe, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Andrew nyr, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Stenckel von Bentheim, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stenckel von Bentheim.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Andrew nyr}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Hi, I see you are creating articles on old Prussian topics. You are citing primary sources (i.e. various Prussian Chronicles). This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Some occasional here-an-there primary source might be ok, but articles need to be written and based on reliable secondary sources. Best sources are academic history books and journal articles. Also, please do not include quotes unless really needed. From Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: Wikipedia editors should summarize source material in their own words. Quotes are ok when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language. See also: WP:QUOTE. Please revise the articles that you have created to meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks, Renata (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: Hello Renata,

Thank you, I appreciate your all your advices and notes.

Best regards,

Schildknappe (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind WP:PRIMARY is to discourage editors from writing articles based on blogposts or the like - i.e., people or their close friends or relatives writing about themselves. IMO it does not in any way apply to obscure figures from the ancient or mediaeval world, where we may have only one source. If it did, just about every article in Wikipedia about people in, for example, the Bible would be open to deletion. Stenckel von Bentheim is a perfectly good stub article, and fills a gap. Compare my article Ariston (strategos), about whom we will never know anything more (it got 258 views in the last year, and I'm rather surprised it was that many). Nevertheless, he is a documented historical figure, and worthy of an encyclopaedia article. (Before you start worrying about me - there was an ambiguous link to Ariston from another article. and the easiest way to fix that problem was to write that truly unforgettable stub.)

The rule against direct quotation only applies to works which are in copyright. That Ariston article is a word-for-word copy of the cited source (published 1870).

I added that reference to your article about von Bentheim to demonstrate what a little inventive searching can turn up online, and also to illustrate how to format a rather complicated citation.

Do not be discouraged from writing articles about obscure historical people and events. Happy editing! Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Hello Narky Blert,

Thank you for your support and proper understanding of my intentions here. All your points are completely valid. On the other hand, you have made a good point - I mean the issue if discouragement. Yes, I feel fully discouraged. All I just want is to make people learn more about history, and particularly help the Europeans learn more about their own history and historical figures. However, if they do not want to know more themselves, it makes all my efforts, fulfilled work and the time spent on this work pointless.

I face the same situation on the Russian Wikipedia. One of my articles has been already deleated, and (as you have pertinently noted) it was also about a documented historical figure. Now the Russian version of the article about Stenckel von Bentheim ([1]) is tagged for deletion too. The same is for the Russian version of Heinrich Stange, although compared to Stenckel von Bentheim he was a more signficant fugure who led some successful campaigns in Prussia in the 13th century until his death in battle and therefore he is mentioned by other authors in both Russian and English versions of the Samland Section of the Prussian Crusade ([2]).

I have written some drafts for new articles but Wikidepia's moderators have discouraged me from publishing them here. Anyway, I really appreciate your efforts to support and protect my work here.

Best regards,

Schildknappe (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stenckel von Bentheim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prussian Chronicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 06:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot: Hello DPL bot,

Thank you, I appreciate your advice and will edit the article.

Best regards,

Schildknappe (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot: Hello DPL bot,

The article has been edited.

Best regards,

Schildknappe (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stenckel von Bentheim

Hello, Schildknappe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stenckel von Bentheim".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Wopławki

Hello, Schildknappe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Wopławki, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]