User talk:Garn Svend

Welcome[edit]

Hello Garn Svend, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Garn Svend, good luck, and have fun. --Zakhalesh (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your rude remark[edit]

I resent the way you reverted an edit that I made at House of Monpezat. First of all, I said nothing about who is king. I am talking about the ruling Dynasty, whether it will be still Glücksburg or Monpezat, not who will be king! Are you trying to be funny? Well, it's not working.

I had a long discussion with Parure (talk) at User_talk:Skol_fir#Thanks for your response on the issue of which House should be considered as the next ruling House, given that patrilineally, it would go to Monpezat. However, there are arguments against such a change. One is that the House of Monpezat does not exist in Denmark (it is French). Another is that the tradition in Denmark calls for the Dynasty to follow from the previous monarch, not the Prince Consort!

I resent your rude remark: "a vote on whether the crown prince can be king? Ridiculous!" You are the one who is ridiculous for not understanding the English the way it is written in context: " ...it is unclear if this would cause a change in the ruling Dynasty in Denmark, which still belongs to the House of Glücksburg. Any such change would probably require a vote in the Danish Parliament." What is obviously meant here is that if the ruling Dynasty was to pass to the House of Monpezat (to which Crown Prince Frederik belongs), it would require the parliament to agree after having a request from the new King. That is all. You have obviously not taken the time to read the paragraph in the section House_of_Monpezat#Danish_titles or the comment at this Talk Page (House of Denmark) and some paragraphs above that.

You need some lessons in civility. You seem to be severely lacking in that department. --Skol fir (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you are the one who who claimed I didn't understand English. The section is only using a low quality private website as a source, was worded confusingly and incorrectly. I don't know what you mean by "dynasty", the proper term is (royal) house. You cannot belong to the House of Glücksburg if you are not a patrilineal descendant. There is no tradition in Denmark "for the Dynasty to follow from the previous monarch" (whatever that means), then the house would never have changed, the house refers to the (male line) family of the monarch. The House of Glücksburg specifically is a German ducal family strictly adhering to Salic law when it comes to house membership and succession. Garn Svend (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garn Svend, you have the most ignorant way of editing that I have ever seen. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt that I am just trying to help clear up an issue raised by someone else, not me, and taking the time to put in a statement about this issue, you are using offensive remarks to "get your way." ~~I am inclined to report you for improper behavior here at Wikipedia. You are the most obnoxious person I have ever come across here.~~ Furthermore, I see you need some lessons from WP:CIV, as you appear to be new to WIkipedia.--Skol fir (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not exactly being civil yourself. Examples: "Do you speak English", "You are the most obnoxious person". Garn Svend (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe I was a bit "hot under the collar", but I think you failed to realize that I was doing my best at the time that I entered the statement about the next ruling House. I am Canadian, and know very little about the rules in Denmark, but I do know from what I have read about this issue, that the matter is not resolved in Denmark. In the UK, on the other hand, it has already been decided by law that the House of Windsor will continue to be the next ruling House, even though the father of Prince Charles belongs to the House of Glücksburg. Thus, in England, the ruling house will pass matrilineally from Queen Elizabeth to her son Charles. I see that the issue has not yet been resolved in Denmark, and I was attempting to say that. You totally misunderstood my point initially. I never said that the next king was in doubt; I spoke only of the Dynasty (which is defined as "A succession of rulers from the same family or line.)

As for the change in the ruling house, it happened with the succession from Frederick VII to Christian IX (from Oldenburg to Glücksburg) due to the fact that the king died without a direct heir. I am not totally ignorant of Danish history. What I was talking about, is that so far, if there has been an heir (son or daughter) they inherited the name of the House from their parent. Now that the current monarch is a Queen, it changes the situation.

In this article, in the section called "Danish titles", we read, "Nor has the Danish Crown issued a proclamation or statement indicating the name that the royal dynasty will bear after Queen Margrethe's reign (in accordance with tradition, she reigns as a member of her father's dynasty, the House of Glücksburg)." So what I said was " which House will become the ruling dynasty" is unclear. That was not ridiculous, based on the facts as we know them. All I am saying is that you need to be more careful in your choice of words in the edit summary, unless I look like a complete fool. Maybe that is how you saw me. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things work differently in the UK, in Denmark (and Germany where the royal family hails from) a "house" is defined by tradition as a male line, a "house" is not something that is defined by law. The word "dynasty" obviously can have different meanings, so it should be avoided in the article. I apologize for using the word ridiculous, which was a slight over reaction. I think the wording "unclear which House will become the ruling dynasty" is too ambiguous, the wording "unclear which name the royal family will use in this event" makes the same point, but more precisely and uncontroversially. The name issue is really the central issue. Garn Svend (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for retracting the term "ridiculous". I also struck out some of my abrasive comments above. I see now that my original wording, that you objected to, could have been interpreted in different ways, even though I knew what I meant to say! BTW, in the UK the Succession to the British throne is governed by both common law and statute, as may also be the case in Denmark, to some extent. However, I have to correct something I said above. Apparently, the fact that the House of Windsor will remain as the ruling dynasty in the future is only by Royal Proclamation (from 1960) -- [Styles of the members of the British royal family: Documents]. I just found out from the article House of Windsor that in the UK, "Any future monarch can change the dynastic name through a similar royal proclamation, as royal proclamations do not have statutory authority." That makes the situation more fluid in the UK than I thought. --Skol fir (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

Thank you so much for the great work on this article! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

You have performed three reverts in less than 24 hours on Elizabeth II. Please see WP:3RR. DrKiernan (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. I did not revert the first time, I rewrote my edit completely to be more acceptable to you, so it was a new edit. I have only reverted your unjustified abuse of relevance tags. Garn Svend (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

You did make three reverts. However, one doesn't have to make more than three reverts in 24 hours to be blocked for edit warring, which it's obvious you're engaging in at Elizabeth II, and might now be starting at Charles, Prince of Wales. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Royal House with Dynasty[edit]

I've suggested merging the article Royal House with Dynasty. I noticed that a little while ago you were involved about moving the article to 'house (family). Any input from you would be much appreciated. Sotakeit (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]