User talk:Stavgard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Gotland Merchant Farmers Republic

To be able to use Capital Letters it has to be an official name. Was there an official state? What was it's official name in Swedish? Where are your claims that Visby broke away from this republic in the war (most historians instead see it as a war between the town and the countryside, as pre-existing separate entities). --OpenFuture (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with Sweden, Gotland was an independent republic today normally named "The Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic"

The official name in trade agreements from that time is "Gutniska kusten" (The Gotlandic coast)

They did not speak Swedish on Gotland. The official language was Gutnish, very similar to Gothic

Stavgard (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see you know very little about Gotlandic history. I have researched on Gotlandic history since 1990 and can by heart give you the sources. Stavgard (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know a lot of Gotlandic history, so your stupid attempts to insult me gets you nowhere. Yes, please, give me the sources.

Also, why have you decided to translate "Gutniska kusten" as "Gotland Merchant Farmers Republic". That makes no sense. It was not a "republic" in any meaningful sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, it's really not helpful to insult other editors here as you just did. You may know more about Gotland's history than the rest of us, but you don't know much yet about editing Wikipedia. You need our help and vice versa, and causing bad feeling by demeaning others is not going to help us collaborate. On the issue of the Gotland Merchant Farmers Republic I can see no references to this entity on a quick Google search, apart from links back to Wikipedia and other inherently unreliable sources (yes, Wikipedia is oficially an unreliable source!) I see no evidence that this entity ever existed in any formal sense. Of course a search using Swedish or some other language might have more results. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but sometimes I get a bit frustrated. "Det som i dag kallas Sverige fanns nog inte när avtalet ingicks, men att gutarna hade ett Allting i sin farmannarepublik vet man dock. Läsövning från Gutasagan: ..."

In Swedish it is called Farmannarepublik. There is very little about Gotlandic history on Wikipedia. There are short extracts from my books by other contributors.

There books about it but none with that title. Erlandsson, Theodor Titel Farmannasagor / av Theodor Erlandsson ; teckningar av David Ahlqvist Språk Svenska Medietyp Bok, artikel eller tidskrift Upplaga Originalupplaga 1949 Utgivning Visby : Wessman & Pettersson, 1949 This book talks about the Merchant Farmers

You must remember that when I started researching Gotlandic history in 1990 there was very little compiled although there are plenty of written sources. I am the first to compile all those sources.

As you can see it is very difficult to get the information into Wikipedia why I concentrate to take away all disinformation. Sometimes I am allowed to put the correct information but it is better to have no information than disinformation

Stavgard (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bernt Enderborg might call it a "farmannarepublik", but I seriously doubt that is a generally accepted term. You need to use the term as used in English sources, or make a direct translation, in this case "The gutnish coast" or similar. You can't use Capital Letters, because this is not a recognized formal entity. It is rather a coalition of traders (indeed, merchant farmers).

I'm dissapointed by the complete lack of sources in your answer. I would have expected you to give me the sources you base this on, but instead you give a quote from the only web page on internet using the word "farmannarepublik".

The actual original sources, that is the trade agreements involving gotland, that I can find does not use the term "Gutniska kusten", although I am aware that such agreements also exist. But it is not a consistent usage as far as I can tell. Also remember that the sources you find have to be pre-1288, as you claim that Visby formally split from Gutniska kusten at this time. Soemthing you *also* have to have a source for. Etc, etc etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/Sv/om-lansstyrelsen/om-lanet/Pages/gotland_historia.aspx This is the official Swedish site. There they call it "Bonderepublik" which in translation is Merchant Farmers Republik Why must it be before 1288? The Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic was not officially abolished until 1618 and the Gotlandic official state seal was used to the mid 1500' Stavgard (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You write: "It is rather a coalition of traders"

Have you heard about the Artlenburg treaty of 1161? In 1158 Henry the Lion invited Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Russian merchants to carry on trade without tariff in his new city foundation Lübeck. The Gotlanders had, since Emperor Lothars time as duke of Saxony (1106 - 1125), had guaranteed trading rights in Saxony. Probably since far back, the Gotlanders had been trading on Bardowick. They do not seem to have been attracted by Henry the Lion's move. The previous agreement between the Emperor Lothair and the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers, dated to the 1120s is broken, and it is spoken in the sources of bloody clashes between Gotlanders and Germans. The hostilities mentioned in the Artlenburg document ensued (1159-1160). Peace was concluded in 1161, in the Saxon customs village Artlenburg, between the Gotlandic Merchant Farmer's Republic, officially called "Gutniska kusten", represented by Liknatte from Stenkyrka, and Henry the Lion of Saxony. This meant that trade peace between the Gotlanders and the Saxon-German merchants was restored. The Gotlanders are secured, against reciprocity, trade privileges in the Duchy of Saxony, which equated them with the duke's own merchants. The Gotlanders thus have the right, without charges to trade in all the Saxon towns, while the Germans have the same right in one of the ports on the Gotlandic coast, namely Visby, where the Danes already have a guild. It is clear that the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic was a trading power that Henry the Lion must bow to. At the same time, however, it clearly shows his policies and goals. Sale of furs and wax on the markets in Western Europe was expanding and the best way to get some of that was to settle on Gotland and exploit the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers knowledge of the transit trade. There is no sign that the Germans participated in any remote trading across the Baltic Sea until after 1161. The Germans lacked both ships and naval experience. The Gotlandic success in the transit trade in the Baltic area was attractive to the Germans. It did, however, take a long time before they managed to get Lübeck to play a role in the Baltic trade and before that "Gutniska kusten" was the leading trading place. Stavgard (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK both of you, time to call a halt on this. Talk pages are not general discussion forums. Stavgard, suggest a specific, referenced edit you would like to make to an article. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not engage in debate or prove our superior knowledge. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to correct desinformation about Gotlandic history i suggest we delete all desinformation instead I repeat that when I came with my first book about Gotlandic history in 1990 there were no serious books about Gotlandic history. As my books only are in Swedish and German I presume you havn't read them. The manuscript to my new extended book is in English but it has not been printed yet Stavgard (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is unreferenced information anywhere it can and should be challenged or removed. Equally, new information needs to be appropriately referened to a reliable source. As far as I can see, I'm afraid your own books do not (mnostly) count as reliable sources although of course some of the sources you use in them may be appropriate. The best way forward here is not further abstract discussin, but drafts of specific changes you would like to make, either here or on the relevant article talk pages. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All my sources are reliable. Professor Bo Gräslund in Uppsala has gone through the way I present the sources and approved of it. Professor Bo Gräslund is even accepting the wars in Beowulf between Gotlanders and Svear. Folkvandringstidens Uppsala 1993. He is now writing a new book about Beowulf and Gotland. I have made the changes that are neccessary to take away desinformation but they have been reversed Stavgard (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"bonderepublik" can not be translated as Merchant Farmers Republic, especially not with capital letters, as now has been explained several times. I also explained why it has to be before 1288, this is not unclear. You are simply not listening, so we won't get further here. If you are not interested in understanding the principles and policies of Wikipedia, you will not be able to contribute, and we will not be able to get rid of the disinformation. The only chance for you to improve Wikipedia is if you make an effort to understand it's principles. Are you willing to make an effort to do so? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't take your word for it that you or your sources are reliable. We can't take your account of what Prof Gräslund says either. Wikipedia has its own criteria for reliability and they are here. If you are unhappy with the views of myself and OpenFuture, there is a noticeboard on reliability of sources where you can ask for an independent ruling. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you translate Bonderepoblik? It is a republic of merchant farmers.

Bonderepubliken Gotland does not cease to exist in 1288. It is just Visby that brakes away and forms an own city republic. I am unhappy that you insist to have desinformation on the Gotlandic history. I don't want people to be misguided with false information. Stavgard (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you: If there is unreferenced information anywhere it can and should be challenged or removed.

This should be removed: Gutnish Republic with the proud ram as it is not a ram but a EYE

This should removed: and the town of Visby was the most important Hanseatic city in the Baltic Sea, As Visby never joined the German Hanse. On the Hanse-day in Lübeck 1364 where Visby was not represented they stated that the merchants in Visby belonged to the German Hanseatic League. On the Hanse-day in Cologne in 1367 representatives from Visby said that they would not like to be forced to be connected to the Hanseatic League, but as before they would like to determine their own trade. Their request was accepted.

This sentance should go out: The city of Visby and rest of the island were governed separately, and a civil war caused by conflicts between the German merchants in Visby and the peasants they traded with in the countryside had to be put down by King Magnus III of Sweden in 1288. As it was a civil war and Visby broke away from the Gotlandic Merchant Farmers Republic.

This sentance should go out as it is wrong: The Victual Brothers occupied the island in 1394 to set up a stronghold as a headquarters of their own in Visby. At last, Gotland became a fiefdom of the Teutonic Knights, awarded to them on the condition that they expel the piratical Victual Brothers from their fortified sanctuary. An invading army of Teutonic Knights conquered the island in 1398, destroying Visby

This sentance should go out as it is wrong: From 1392 the Victual Brothers were acting as pirates, who made the Baltic Sea unsafe. They became known as Vitalians. They began their campaign with among other things to run riot and ravage Gotland. There they built the pirate fortress Landskrone on Vivesholm in Sanda.

The fortress Landskrone on Vivesholm in Sanda. Not Visby Stavgard (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. There is in an official definition and description of the weapon of gotland. This is "I blått fält en stående vädur av silver med beväring av guld, bärande på en korsprydd stång av guld ett rött baner med bård och fem flikar av guld."

The significant word here is "vädur", which means ram. Not ewe, but ram. I know you have some theory that it originally was a ewe, but again, that claim needs a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

About Visby being "Hanseatic" or not: Loads of reliable sources list Visby as a Hansa city. see Hanseatic_League#Lists_of_former_Hansa_cities. If it was officially a part of the Hansa or not is an interesting topic, but this is a general problem with the Hansa, as it wasn't a fixed union of a specific set of cities, but a loose changing coalition of cities. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Information is not reliable only of the reason that it is printed. Deeper research finds new sources. The word Hanse does not exist in the Baltic Sea until after the formation of the Hanseatic League in 1358

On the Hanse-day in Lübeck 1364 where Visby was not represented they stated that the merchants in Visby belonged to the German Hanseatic League. On the Hanse-day in Cologne in 1367 representatives from Visby said that they would not like to be forced to be connected to the Hanseatic League, but as before they would like to determine their own trade. Their request was accepted. This is documented!!!!

For us on Gotland it is NAZI-propaganda from the 1920 when Germany wanted to be big. I know the German litterature and have most of it. About 10 years ago I attended a symposium in Lübeck on the Hanse with mostly German professors. I was the only one from Sweden.

When I pressed them on Visby and the Hanse they had to admit that I was right. Stavgard (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is also an lye: An impressive feature of Visby is the fortress wall that surrounds the old city, dating from the time of the Hanseatic League.

The wall is from the 1280' and the Hanseatic league was founded in 1358

Stavgard (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nazi-propaganda from the 20s? What utter nonsense. The sources we have for Visby being a Hansa-city are from between 1863 and 2000.

So we *have* reliable sources that Visby was a Hanseatic town. We only have your word that this is wrong. We can't change it.

Do you understand why? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also: Please do not call incorrect information "lies". I'm sure whoever claimed the wall around Visby was Hanseatic simply didn't know better. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand you can't change it but you can take it out so we don't have disinformation about the Gotlandic history. I understand you don't accpet new research. If somebody has written something in the past it can't according to your rules be updated.

Dr Hugo Yrwing writes Gotlands Medeltid Inom östersjöområdet förekommer inte ordet hansa under 1100- och 1200-talen, vilket har sin naturliga förklaring. Stavgard (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

if this is the case : I'm sure whoever claimed the wall around Visby was Hanseatic simply didn't know better. Than it must be possible to delete it. Stavgard (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is. I've already changed it so it now says "13th century". This is an uncontroversial simple change. I might even dig up a reliable source later. Nobody contradicts this. Obviously you think your theories are correct, that's self-evident. But you seem to not realize that they are controversial and not generally accepted, or you simply want Wikipedia to display your opinions in preference to other opinions. You need to recognize that this is not reasonable. This is not how science or Wikipedia works. When you make a controversial statement, like the claim that the sheep is not a ram but a ewe, you must have reliable sources to back that up. Until you accept that, your efforts of contributing here will largely be wasted.

I understand you don't accpet new research. If somebody has written something in the past it can't according to your rules be updated. - This is wrong. We do accept new research. You are not listening to what we tell you!

Tore, you MUST read WP:V. We have asked you over and over. PLEASE read it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"But you seem to not realize that they are controversial and not generally accepted" They are not controversial. There is always somebody who tries to show that he or she has an other opinion. Why do you think my first book 20 years ago sold in 7000 copies. I have discussed the content in various academical circles and nobody has come up with something wrong. I have lectured with professor Hans Rebas at the university of Kiel on the Deutsche Hanse.

My new book in English has been controlled by a dr in archaeologi and a professor in art history.

Earlier today somebod this was written ", and Göran Henriksson has been heavily criticized. His research has been called "nonsense" by archaeologists as well as astronomers. It is not a fact that the grooves are from the stone age. It is your opinion." by [User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know about the article. It was written by a student who calls himself archaelogist has taken some courses at the university but has no academic exam. This article was sharply countered. This man is no writing childrens books

Stavgard (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read this: WP:V? Yes/No? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, two experienced editors have been trying over the last two days to help you understand how Wikipedia works. I'm going to repeat myself one last time but then I'm going to shut up and leave you in peace. It does not matter what circles you have discussed your work in. It does not matter who you have debated with. It does not matter whether or not you think your findings are uncontroversial and widely accepted. A central pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. This means that if your assertions about your work are truly widely accepted, there will be evidence of that wide acceptance in reputable books, journals and websites that have been written by OTHER PEOPLE (not just by you.) These must be published sources that anyone can consult, not lectures, private meetings, conferences or lectures. In order to add material to an article, you need to find those external sources and cite them in anything you write. Your own work, on its own, is not sufficiently reliable. You can use the reliable sources which you have cited in your own work, and also on any reliable sources who cite you and thereby demonstrate the acceptance of your theories. Anything else is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

I'm sorry if this feels insulting, or demeaning of your expertise, or as if we are saying we don't want your input. That's not the case: it would be great to have more detail on the topic area you are familiar with, but you cannot simply give as a reference "because I say so" or "because I discussed this with a well known Professor." I very strongly suggest that you read the blue linked pages in my paragraph above. If you read them and follow their guidance you will find it much easier to improve the articles here; if you don't then you are likely to find editing Wikipedia a very frustrating and unrewarding experience. I won't post further here unless you specifically ask me for any guidance, but I will keep this page on my watchlist. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I fully understand your point of view and that it is impossible to post correct material on Gotlandic history. The best is that you remove Gotlandic history from Wikipedia as it is very frustrating to hear that they read it on Wikipedia and it needs a long discussion to show them that it is nonsens they read on Wikipedia.

Until now we don't have a professor in Gotlandic history and nobody seems to be interested to spend money on research and writing i similar book. I am sorry, but that is the case. We will need a sponsor for a professor in Gotlandic history. Stavgard (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I must thank you for all the help I have received to learn how Wikipedia functions. Unfortunately I will not have much help of it. The reason why I now publish the Gotlandic history in English is that we want to reach a larger audience. Today it is only available in Swedish and German. That is the reason you don't find much about Gotlandic history. As Gotland was an independant country and only was annexed by Sweden in 1679 the Swedes have not really been interesed in Gotlandic history until I came with my first book.

A little amusing story: On day the Swedish king's aid, who I knew, phoned me and pleaded I must help him. The king of Norway was coming to visit him and King Carl-Gustav wanted a copy of Gutarnas historia to be placed on the sideboard next to King Haralds bed.

Stavgard (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Yes I fully understand your point of view and that it is impossible to post correct material on Gotlandic history. "

We have said nothing like this. This is not our position.

Do you want the misinformations about Gotland to remain in Wikipedia? --OpenFuture (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you according to your rules can't correct it you must delete all misinformation. You can see where I have changed and you have reversed. All that I have changed was misinformation. Stavgard (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We can correct it. Do you want to help to correct it? It is a simple question. Why don't you answer it? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You can correct it by reverse your reverse of my corrections Stavgard (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your credibility is very low. You use very questionably sources for your refutations

lthough his methodology has been heavily criticized.

This journal is very disreputable. And Jonathan Lindström is the person I mentioned earlier that has no academic exam but poses as an archaelogist. He has taken som courses in archaeology but never finished. He is a very controversial person. And he uses his teacher Roslunds name although Roslund was no part of this article. Stavgard (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the question. It is a simple Yes/No/Maybe question. It is not hard to answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a question here but I see what you have done to the page Gotland. If you consider Folkvett for a recognized source than you are very far out. I want to think of you as an honest editor but in that case you can't use this disreputable sourse. They tried to make some statements before Chrismas but got blacklisted by Swedish media.

yes Stavgard (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions you have not answered: 1. Are you interested in improving Wikipedia and removing incorrect information? 2. Have you read this page --> Wikipedia:Verifiability --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I bother to be here is that I want to improve Wikipedia as in some cases it is considered very unreliable.

I have read this and the parts I want to correct do not meet this paragraph. Thats why they should go out. Yes, you can find it in older material. You can also find that the world is flat in older material. The problem with the Gotlandic history is that there is very little in print except my extensive research. I am the only one that is researching on Gotlandic history for the last 20 years. It is very difficult to erase old written things that now are found to be wrong. When I came with my first book Gutarnas historia in 1990 my colleages at the Royal Museum in Stockholm and Vitterhetsakademin said that it would take at least 15 years before my new research would be accepted. Already after 5 years it was fully accepted, but how to get the old stuff out. I understand that you want international sources but it is very difficult in the case of Gotland. When we talk about the Astronomical calendars we have

Fil.Dr. Göran Henriksson has been attached to both the Dept of Astronomy and Dept of Archaeologi at Uppsala Paper presented at Conference: SEAC 8th. Moscow 2000 Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations ISBN: 5-02-008768-8  Editor(s): Prof. Tamila Potemkina & Prof. V. Obridko Place/Year: Moscow, 2002

It was a Norwegian who wrote when Visby became a World Hertage Place and he didn't know that Visby never joined the Hanse. Now were trying to get this word out of the World Heritage list. Stavgard (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"The reason why I bother to be here is that I want to improve Wikipedia as in some cases it is considered very unreliable."

Good. That is a yes. Thanks for the answer.

If you want to improve Wikipedia, the first thing you must do is to understand how Wikipedia works.

"I understand that you want international sources"

No, this is not the case. You aren't listening to us. You will have to listen. We are trying to explain to you how Wikipedia works, so that you can help. But you don't listen.

So next question: Are you willing to start listening to what we say? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am listening but I also realise that it seems impossible to comply with the rules as it only takes note of old outdated written information. Even if resent research shows that the old written sources are faulty. What suggestions do you have to correct the part of the Gotlandic history? Stavgard (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not listening. It is not impossible to comply with the rules. You are imagining rules that does not exist, instead of actually reading the rules.

Listen to this: If you want to contribute, you have to first understand how Wikipedia works.

So, new question: Do you want to understand how Wikipedia works? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have got good instructions from your collegue, and as the only recent published books on accepted Gotlandic history are my books. According to your rules they can't be quoted even if they are used all over the world and in the schools on Gotland. We are in a Moment 22 situation You couldn't accept that the Gotlandic symbol is a EYE not a RAM. When you see them together you see it immediately. For the Gotlanders it is an offense to call a EYE for a RAM Stavgard (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Do you want to understand how Wikipedia works? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How many times must I tell you that I understand how it works. Depending on how you read the rules the Gotlandic History can or can't be updated and disinformation taken away. "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." and you can only update Gotlandic history if it first has entered an encyclopidia. As we have not updated any encyclopidia with the latest research on Gotlandic history Wikipedia can't be updated. It is clear in the rules you want me to read However, it also says "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles" Here it is up to the editor what he or she accepts. Stavgard (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can find, it says: "All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia." In my interpretation I can refer to "2000 Jahre Handel und Kultur im Ostseegebiet - Gotland, Perle der Ostsee" ISBN91-972306-6-9 As far as I can see this book qualifies. If you accept this we can go further. Stavgard (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you search ISBN91-972306-6-9 on Google you will get 109 results Stavgard (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand how Wikipedia works. This sentence proves that: "Depending on how you read the rules the Gotlandic History can or can't be updated and disinformation taken away." That sentence is wrong. You don't understand how Wikipedia works.

"you can only update Gotlandic history if it first has entered an encyclopidia" - Incorrect.

The question is if you want to understand how Wikipedia works. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't read all I wrote. Am I right??? "As far as I can find, it says: "All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia." In my interpretation I can refer to "2000 Jahre Handel und Kultur im Ostseegebiet - Gotland, Perle der Ostsee" ISBN91-972306-6-9 As far as I can see this book qualifies. If you accept this we can go further. If you search ISBN91-972306-6-9 on Google you will get 109 results" Stavgard (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong. The question is still if you want to understand how Wikipedia works. I can try and explain it to you, but if you aren't interested, and if you aren't listening, it would be a waste of time. It does seem more and more likely that me trying to reach through to you is a waste of time, because you still aren't willing to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what I have misinterpreted in the rules Stavgard (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We asked you to read WP:V. And we meant all of it. Not just one little bit that you can then use to ignore everything else.

Wikipedia policies require claims to be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. I quote:

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Your self-published books do not fulfill these requirements. We can not use them. Do you have any questions on that? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted my contribution on Grooves. It is a more than acceptable source edited by 2 professors and published in Moskow? Stavgard (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I explained in the edit message. It was not unclear: "This article is neither about Stonehenge, nor Hyperboreans." Your addition was partly about Stonehenge and partly about Hyperboreans. It contained no information about the grooves at all. Questions on that?

Please also note that you should not revert a reversion like you did on that article. It is called edit-warring, and can lead to you being blocked. Changes should be *discussed*. If you were allowed to edit war everybody would just sit and revert each others additions all the time, instead of discussing it, and Wikipedia would suck.

It is important for you to understand that being right or wrong is irrelevant on Wikipedia, because everybody thinks they are right. You can't break Wikipedia rules just because you think you are right, because then everybody would do it. Wikipedia policies are here for a reason, then look like they do because they work. You must learn, understand and follow them. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the insert it starts with the Grooves at Hajdeby on Gotland and makes a comparion with other astronomical calendars. If you don't accept the findings at the international symposium in Moscow you have to specify your reasons. I don't think you are qualified for editing here!! If you are you should identify yourself

Stavgard (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It makes no such comparison. It quotes Göran Henriksson, claiming that a comparison is interesting. That's all. The rest fo the text is not about the grooves, but about Stonehenge, and then about roman writings on Hyperboreans. None of it has anything to do with grooves, even if you accept that the grooves are calendars.

You still are not interested in understanding how Wikipedia works. I do, and that makes me qualified to edit here. You don't and that means you are not qualified to edit here. That's how it works. The qualification for editing Wikipedia comes with understanding and accepting the policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you breaking the rules by reversing a fully legimate insertion? Stavgard (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are breaking the rules. We can discuss here why you want to stop a paper presented at an international symposium in Moscow and edited by 2 professors and published available for you to buy the book. It fullfills all the requirements.

We don't know how you are. Could be a terrorist. I think you should present yourself on your page. Stavgard (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who I am is irrelevant. I am not breaking the rules. I'm not trying to "stop" anything. I'm trying to explain to you who Wikipedia works, but you refuse to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning.

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I want an answer from a responsible person. Open:Future is an anonymous person who reverts my fully legimate entry.

He is censoring a paper presented at an Intenational Symposium in Moscow and edited by two professors Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. He refuses to answer why he is censoring this paper.

This person Open:Future thinks he can censure The Russian Academy of Sciences. I don't think it is Wikipedias policy to censure The Russian Academy of Sciences Stavgard (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a responsible person. Here is my answer:

I have explained why I reverted the additions. I am not censoring anything, I do not want to censor anything and I am not able to censor anything anyway. It is not Wikipedia's policy to censure The Russian Academy of Sciences or anything else. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case you have better reinstate my additions. As you don't want to identify yourself I can mention that you are the chairman of a shady suspicious society which aim is to censure everything you don't like and defame the authors. Stavgard (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot Swedish shady suspicious society Stavgard (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning re threatened outing

Stavgard, do not post edits like this and speculate on the identity of your fellow editors. This approaches outing and is not permitted. OpenFuture is not out of step with WP practice: most editors do not announce their real names. There is absolutely no requirement for editors to identify themselves, while there IS an absolute requirement to respect others' privacy. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a lot of crap. I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to censor a paper presented at an international symposium in Moscow and edited by 2 professors and published available for you to buy the book. It fullfills all the requirements. This is not about privacy. This is about not allowed censorship Stavgard (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What was the reason that your additions got reverted? It was stated both in the edit message, and on the talk page. Did you read any of these explanations? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I read the explanations. And what you say is a lot of lie. The paper in Moscow deals with astronomical calendars on Gotland and Stonhenge and their dating. To compare what happens in various places in the world at the same time is very important Stavgard (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I you don't accept the professors at the International symposium in Moscow who have edited the paper about the astronomical calendar, you should take the fight with them. I can't see anywhere that it is Wikipedia policy to refute such papers Stavgard (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours because of this attempted outing of another editor, despite my clear warning above. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This was my only possibility to draw your attention to OpenFuture censoring this document: Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations. I don't think it is the idea of Wikipedia to censure such documents. Stavgard (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I see that you have blocked me. I presume you did not see OpenFuture threat on me

I forgot Swedish shady suspicious society Stavgard (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here he accepts that he is going to censure everything that has to do with Gotland Stavgard (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you did not understand my explanations. I don't think I can make them clearer or simpler. Perhaps somebody else can, but this is beyond my ability. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand you explanations. You don't accept that in the symposium in Moscow they make comparisons between the Gotlandic astronomical calendars and Stonhenge. And this document is edited by 2 renowned professors and published by The Russian Academy of Sciences According to you such a document can't be published on Wikimedia as you are one of the few remaining people (the rest are dead) who thought the grooves are from Iron Age when it is internationally accepted that it is astronomical calendars from the Stone Age Stavgard (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I do accept that in the symposium in Moscow they make comparisons between the Gotlandic astronomical calendars and Stonhenge. That is uncontroversial.

I do accept that this document is edited by at least one renowned professors. Tamila Potemkina seems to have published almost nothing, and there is very little information about her. Maybe she indeed is (or was) a professor on the Russian Academy of Sciences, but it is hard for me to see how she can be renowned when she hasn't published anything. Vladimir N. Obridko however has published a lot, and is reasonable that he is renowned.

I do accept that the book is published by The Russian Academy of Sciences.

But all this is irrelevant, because: The text you added was not about archaeological grooves. It was about Stonehenge and Hyperboreans. You clearly do not understand this. You should ask somebody to explain it to you. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The basis for this article is an article in Fornvännen 1983 http://fornvannen.se/pdf/1980talet/1983_021.pdf This article was edited and approved by the previous editor of Fornvännen Fil Dr Jan-Peder Lamm Fornvännen is a highly reputable magazine Göran H. wrote the article in 1982. Jan-Peder Lamm edited the article but suggested that Göran H. should include a comparison with Stonehenge. Therefore did J-P L supply Göran H. with archaeological history about Stonehenge. Göran H. re-wrote the article with comparison with Stonhenge and the article was published in 1983.

Jan-Peder Lamm, born 27 October 1935, is a Swedish archaeologist. He received his PhD in 1973 from the University of Stockholm for a dissertation about a Migration Period elite cemetery near Drottningholm. Lamm taught archaeology at the University of Stockholm in the 1970s and then worked until retirement as Head Curator for the Swedish Iron Age at the Museum of National Antiquities in Stockholm. He is a member of the editorial board behind the journal Fornvännen and has taken active part in the Helgö project since the 1960s. Fornvännen (print: ISSN 0015-7813, online: ISSN 1404-9430) is a Swedish academic journal in the fields of archaeology and Medieval art. It is published quarterly by the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters in Stockholm, Sweden. The journal's contributions are written in the Scandinavian languages, English, or German with summaries in English. Fornvännen has the alternate title Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research. The editor in chief is Lars Larsson. Fornvännen began publication in 1906 when it replaced two earlier journals, Svenska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift and Vitterhetsakademiens Månadsblad. Early contributors included noted archaeologists Oscar Montelius and Hans Hildebrand.[1] Since 2000 it has an online version, since 2007 its first 100 annual volumes have been available on-line, and since 2009 Fornvännen is published as a delayed open-access journal with the online version of each issue appearing six months after the paper version. Fornvännen is an ERIH category B journal. According to Ulrich's, it is indexed in Anthropological Index Online, Anthropological Literature, British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (Online Edition), Nordic Archaeological Abstracts, and FRANCIS. It was previously also indexed in Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur and Linguistic Bibliography.[2] Henriksson, Göran. The grooves on the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea: a neolithic lunar calendar. Paper presented at Conference: SEAC 8th. Moscow 2000 Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations ISBN: 5-02-008768-8 Editor(s): Prof. Tamila Potemkina & Prof. V. Obridko Gotländskt Arkiv is the official yearbook for the Gotlandic Heritage Board, Föreningen Gotlands Fornvänner Stavgard (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Astronomical calendars on Gotland

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Astronomical calendars on Gotland. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Gotland astronomical calendars. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Gotland astronomical calendars - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Bazj (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gotland astronomical calendars

You agreed that it can be removed, so:

The article Gotland astronomical calendars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable fringe theory about a topic that already exists as Grooves (archaeology)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OpenFuture (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a deletion against Wikipedia rules

Please re-instate

Stavgard (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)