User talk:Bloodofox/Archive 1

Harald Fairhair

I recently began trying to edit this entry and see that you redacted one of my changes. That's fine; I'm sure you have your reasons, but the article could use some changes, I think. I am a little concerned about editing piecemeal but I certainly don't intend re-writing the entire thing. Anyway: If we start with Snorri Sturluson and then say he is wrong, perhaps some alternative ideas should be stated. If Harald's family was not Vestfold-based, perhaps some further statements about why Sturluson said so might be in order. For instance, the concept that Harald's family represented a "native" response to Danish incursion ( Niels Lund and others use the term "empire" to describe Danish holdings) was of value to medieval Norwegians battling expansionist Denmark. And, even if not from the Vestfold, doesn't the idea of native vs. foreigner have some significance overall? I would like to see the article mention Guthorm -- some such figure must have existed in order to maintain the child-king and is significant in terms of demonstrating the disciplined ambition of this family -- and Athelstan -- the fostering of Hakon certainly shows that there was diplomatic intercorse between Harald and England and suggests that there may have been some degree of cooperation on such common problems as piracy. There is more, but mostly I would like to see this article do more than simply deny Heimskringla which, in essence, is pretty much what it's about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCBC (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I believe you are mistaken; the only edit I've ever made on that article is this one: [1] (which was not a revert but rather a link to a newly created article on a skaldic work about Harald, Hrafnsmál/Haraldskvæði). The Harald I of Norway article is in a poor state, and a complete (fully sourced with inline citations) rewrite would be welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, must have misread the history. Anyway, I may try again. It is difficult to edit these encyclopedia articles. I am really curious about the maps. I haven't seen them anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCBC (talk • contribs) 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes an article requires a total rewrite. In fact, the majority of the articles on Wikipedia could well due with a complete rewrite. However, when editing on Wikipedia, additions must always be sourced (Including page numbers) and must be neutral (as in "according to so-and-so, this ...." or "so-and-so theorizes, that ..."). For some examples, have a look at some of the articles I've brought up to "Good Article" status here: User:Bloodofox#Awarded_.2828.29. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Although I am still learning proper WikiNess (like signing posts). Anyway, I don't really want to tackle a full rewrite at this moment but have begun assembling sources for one in the future. CCBC (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask any questions you may have. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gunnhild, Mother of Kings

Your comments would be welcome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've posted some comments there. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of danish article

Hi Bloodofox, I'm suspecting you of speaking danish. I've started a small project on da:wiki about norse paganism, but unfortunately no one else but me has any substantially knowledge there on this subject. I've recently posted a request for a review of this article: da:Nordisk religion, and I'll be very happy if you could take a short look on it, and add some comments. You will find the review on this page da:Wikipedia:Evaluering/Nordisk religion. --Ktp72 (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good article, I hope to read it all later. Now I only read the last section closely. The only thing I stumbled over was this sentence:

Hvor de tidligere bevægelser var præget af mystik og okkultisme, var de nyere af en mere rekonstruktivistisk karaktér og knyttet til andre neohedenske bevægelser, som fx wicca.

I think you may be trying to squeeze too much into a single sentence here, possibly causing confusion, even though each individual element is true. Wicca (and I have nothing against Wicca) is certainly occult and certainly not reconstructionist so mentioning a connection with it in this context seems confusing to me. Haukur (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to read from the bottom up, this is the next thing I'm wondering about:

I det før-kristne samfund havde kvindelige præster haft stor betydning, de mistede fuldstændigt deres status i det kristne samfund. Samtidigt var der ikke nogen åbenlys erstatning for de funktioner, de varetog; det var sandsynligvis derfor, at det hovedsageligt var kvinder, der videreførte de gamle ritualer.

This is an interesting theory which I hadn't really heard before. Maybe that's just lack of knowledge on my part and this is something which is now generally accepted(?) but I would have expected to see this presented as less of a fact and more of a theory than you do there. I realize this isn't the Witch-cult hypothesis but it sounds like a relative of it (which doesn't make it wrong). How much do we really know about the role of female priestesses back then? How certain are the conclusions can we draw from the 13th and 14th century laws? This is something I suppose I'll have to read up on :) Haukur (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Haukur for your remarks. I've changed the sentence about wicca - your right it's probately a question of lack of reviewing my own text. Now it reads: Hvor de ældre bevægelser, som fx wicca, var præget af mystik og okkultisme, har de nyere hovedsageligt haft en mere rekonstruktivistisk karaktér og har været knyttet til andre neohedenske bevægelser.

Regarding your next issue. I've tried to emphasize, that this is not an universially accepted teory, by mentioning those who have advanced it. (where I found it). You can probately find a lot of similary examples in the text. I hope you don't mind, that I've moved your remarks to this page, it migth inspire others, to give there comments. --Ktp72 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Ktp, I am afraid that my Danish is currently pretty limited (but I am working on it!), and therefore I am not of much help here. In fact, you may notice that our article on Norse paganism here on en.wikipedia is also pretty bad. In time I hope to change it. However, dealing with very general articles has proven for me to be the most challenging to bring up to standard, so good luck to you! Haukurth here, on the other hand, is obviously more skilled with the Danish, and he knows his stuff, so you may want to continue consulting him. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue commenting on the Danish article over on dawiki. Sorry for commandeering your talk page, Bloodofox! Haukur (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I just wish it were a little more hygge for my guests! :D :bloodofox: (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just guessing, but none-the-less I got what I came for. Yes my project became much bigger, than what I thought it would be from the beginning. A began with the intention of writing the general article, but soon realized that I had to write/rewrite the others too (cosmology, rituals and mythology). regards --Ktp72 (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kylfings

A new FAC vote which may interest you. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Norse giants

I invite you to take a look at how I've redirected this category. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hlín

Hi Bloodofox. I saw your nomination of Hlín and, unfortunately, was not able to pass it for GA, since I think it's just too short right now. I noticed that Whitehorse1 is about to review Ratatoskr, though, so maybe he will feel differently (since it looks like that article is similar in length and coverage); if he does, maybe you could ask for a reassessment of Hlin. Also, I noticed that you just recently expanded the article Sága and Sökkvabekkr fivefold... so if you don't think it will get GA (personally I think I would evaluate it the same as I evaluated Hlín, but anyway I will step back and wait for someone else to review it), you could always pick out an interesting fact for it and nominate it at DYK. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments at the Hlín and Sága and Sökkvabekkr articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Talking of my good self ... and Ratatoskr's GAN ... just a quick note to say I hope to attend to it over the next 24hrs. Sorry about the delay! :) Whitehorse1 07:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. I'm trying to sort out this business with Ratatoskr's etymology in the mean time (if it can be sorted out without delving into original research-land) and I'm also pretty busy myself. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sága and Sökkvabekkr

The article Sága and Sökkvabekkr you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sága and Sökkvabekkr for things needed to be addressed. Eustress (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kadmon

A tag has been placed on Kadmon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Genius101^Guestbook 22:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ydalir

Maybe this is a stupid question but surely is should be connection not "connexion"? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Connexion" is British spelling, and as the word is inside a direct quote, it should not be altered. –Holt (T•C) 13:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Holt is correct. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre. I think Simek used an archaic use without realising it. Personally I've never read that spelling in any newspaper, journal or book. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Saturn

Weren't we just recently discussing this? Haukur (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We sure were! I've posted a little rambling there in response. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification

There's a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#non-consensus_move_of_Julian_the_Apostate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Slippy / Slippery

I respect your diligence, but "slippy" means "slippery"[2], and since many more people know what "slippery" means than "slippy" (I myself did not know), it seems (at least to me) that "slippery" is a better definition. There is no requirement in citation to use direct words from a secondary source. I have changed it back to slippery, but if you still disagree with me, feel free to again undo my edit and I won't complain again. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a quote directly from a source, in this case Andy Orchard. Changing it to "slippery" misattributes Orchard. If you come up with a reliable source that says that "Sleipnir" means "Slippery," then we can, of course, add that right next to it. In the mean time, I am sure you will agree that it's important to accurately represent the source referenced. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your report at WP:AN3

Per the result of the case you reported, both editors are warned. See the details at the noticeboard, and on brutaldeluxe's talk page. If you find it necessary to return to the articles mentioned in the report, usage of WP:Dispute resolution is expected. For example, consider an article WP:RFC to answer a specific question about the referencing needed. If reverts continue without getting any outside input, both parties risk a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Led Zep reference on Valhalla

You removed it citing no reference, yet I linked Immigrant Song to the Wikipedia article which also mentions it?! After making the mod I noticed all the discussion on the article and so can appreciate that there have been a ton of efforts to add to the modern section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.178.136 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's unreferenced. It needs a citation backing it up. The article is a WP:GA article and all claims require a reference or else the article can be delisted from that status. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process and am curious what kind of reference it would need; an external link to lyrics or something? --70.251.178.136 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Printed sources are preferable. I dug one up about the subject and added it to the article. You can check my last couple of edits on the article for how to do this. You may be surprised what you can find at books.google.com sometimes. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks for the tutorial. And I'd have never thought to try Google Books. --70.251.178.136 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'm glad to help when I can. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blond -- removal of the gallery

In which way is this original research? Do you think that the images have to be deleted? I can't see how the gallery conflicts with Wikipedia policies.
Sincerely, 217.236.194.52 (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It had zero references. The "types of blond" being applied were someone's (anonymous) opinion and, as pointed out on the talk page, very dubious. Please read WP:OR. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Hobbit. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Eeekster (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm aware. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

POV mess at Triple Goddess‎‎ and war of attrition at Talk:Triple Goddess

Thanks for your work at Triple Goddess‎‎ and Talk:Triple Goddess‎‎. It's clear there is no consensus for it to be an article about Wicca, or to generalize all historical Pagan or Neopagan beliefs into a Wiccan structure. Anyone with experience in the field should know that, so I find the whole debacle very odd. But I am just not in the mood to fight right now. It shouldn't have to be a fight. I may try to get back into it later, but right now it seems stupid and pointless. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm afraid I can't justify the time spent walking a particular editor through concepts such as "Indo-European peoples" or bother with the merits of whether or not pointlessly arguing about semantics. I only have so much time here, and I'd rather spend it building articles. Eventually the article will come together. If you need a hand with anything regarding Germanic deities that appear in threes or anything (some would say... triple deities), let me know. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How about Triple Goddesses (really, I mean it, dammit!) or Triple Goddess (that I found in a video game!!!!) :-) Wait, you mean, there's actually something called... history? Who knew? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In case it's of interest to you, I've added documentation in the Talk page's last section (it's now very long). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can provide various goddess trios from Germanic mythology (The Norns, Mothers), and then there's the fact that both the numbers three and nine are supremely important in Germanic paganism, but otherwise I don't know if I am of much use there. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Nordic folklore

You nominated Category:Nordic folklore for merging but used an incorrect template. I have corrected this and started a discussion here. Your input would be useful. Tassedethe (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, check the history of the article and you'll see that it was not me who placed the tag. Thank you though. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Triple Goddess

I think there's been progress at Triple Goddess (Neopaganism), as it's now titled. Would you care to look it over? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It does look like you guys are making some progress, and I'll take a look over and see if I can help. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And you could, and you did. Thank you! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:So03.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:So03.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cannibaloki 05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern influence (Valhalla)

You reverted my edit because "This is not a pop culture list". I agree with you say this isn't a pop culture list but I don't understand what is the link between it and the structure of the section.This section was hard to read and I changed the structure to make it easier to read. I don't understand what can be, here, the link between the structure and the fact to be, or not, part of the popular culture. Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You have converted the section into a bullet list, effectively turning the section into a pop culture list. This isn't helpful nor, in my opinion, does it make it any easier to read. Another editor has also reverted your change. Please seek consensus on the talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Gerðr

Where on the Wikipedia:Good articles list do you want Gerðr? I figure it should probably go in either "Divinities and protohistoric figures" or "Myths, mythology and miracles", but I don't see clear dividing line between these two categories. --maclean (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Gerðr is a goddess, I think her article is most appropriate at "Divinities and protohistoric figures". I agree that there's a blur here. I think "Myths, mythology and miracles" needs to be more concise. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Had to laugh

This is the funniest edit conflict ever. I thought, Wow, has Bloodofox gone temporarily mad? Ha ha ha. Good recovery, but I just had to mention it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, ouch. While madness may be inevitable, worry not—I'm not there yet! :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet

While not required, it's often better to add a specific issue tag issue=y in a cleanup template and/or a talk page comment when adding a tag (the template mentions "The discussion page may contain suggestions"). I think it's clear it does need more and better sources; a character that's hundreds of years old should, one would suppose, be able to be sourced to some things better than a few websites and a couple recent newspaper articles. Is it a concern that the unreferenced content is original research and that's why it needs extensive or complete rewriting? Шизомби (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to use that. The main issue is that much of the article is composed of unattributed opinion and is loaded to the brim with weasel words. In my opinion, the only way to salvage the article is to give it a proper rewrite based off of scholarly sources (preferably to GA standards) where all opinions are clearly attributed to their sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the high quality contributions

User:Bloodofox has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Bloodofox's day! You have made remarkable contributions to the project, and the editors and readers of those pages are and always will be grateful to you for them. We all look forward to seeing you return and continue in such development. Thank you again for your outstanding efforts at article development. Peace, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here. Sorry, a bit late this one.

Hey, thanks! It's always good to get feedback, but having a day named after you! On the down side, this day will go down in infamy as when I first demanded blood tribute from my fellow Wikipedians. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Horagalles

You have repeatedly made changes on the page about the God called "Thora Galles" or Horagalles. Please stop removing the image of the “Skog Tapestry” with the ancient Nordic Gods from this article. Another issue is that you must add literature references for your text corrections. Until you do that, please do not edit the page. I have added literature references for the text that I have added to that article. If something is controversial within literature about this or any issue, then the controversies can be pointed out within the text instead of removing contributions that have literature references added. Your personal beliefs are not really of relevance for changing the text in this or any other article. Thorguds (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Skog Tapestry (itself a matter of debate on the question of whether or not it depicts Thor) has nothing to do with the Sami and, in consequence, zero to do with Horagalles. This is why it does not belong on the article in question. Secondly, your addition of "or Thor" next to any mention of the name Horagalles results in some very poor prose. A single explanation is enough. I have, again, removed both of these things. Third, my addition regarding Sif is fully referenced. With that said, the article still needs major work. If you want a decent article on the figure here on Wikipedia—and it seems that you do—you should consider working to make the article meet Wikipedia's Good Article standards. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Bloodofox! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 963 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Kadmon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Amodali - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Annabel Lee (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do as ye may, bot. Standards have since (fortunately) changed a lot here, and I don't have the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Geri and Freki

The article Geri and Freki you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Geri and Freki for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken over the review form Gary who has recused himself. I have just a few issues for you to address, on hold until 24 January. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fraujaz/Frijjō/Frigg/Freyja

This might interest you. :) --Aryaman (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While the articles you point to are certainly in a miserable state, I am afraid I don't have the time to approach them. However, before I ran out of time for Wikipedia I managed to rewrite Freyja from scratch. It probably needs some copyediting and it definitely needs some additions—see Talk:Freyja for more information.

By the way, it appears that I still have some articles pending for GA review: Skaði, Veðrfölnir and eagle, and Vígríðr. You are more than welcome to handle their inevitable GA reviews. They should not require much more work. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed these articles. I passed Skaði, but have questions/comments on the other two: Talk:Vígríðr/GA1 and Talk:Veðrfölnir and eagle/GA1 --maclean (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edits and reviews. I have answered the questions you've posed at the Veðrfölnir and eagle and Vígríðr talk pages. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gifford Pinchot and John Muir

Dear Bloodofox: I have letters from the Library of Congress supporting the changes I made to the Muir entry. Why is this not allowable out of curiosity? I find it rather important information that Muir and Pinchot met years before the entry states and that they had not had a falling out the year that is cited. On the contrary, I have letters again from the L of C that show they were still in cordial relationship. Bibi Gaston Gifford Pinchot's great niece Author, The Loveliest Woman in America Bibigaston (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity for future readers

You added material -- supporting notability, I understand -- that was accompanied by references.[3] The references were not cited inline or explicitly quoted. The issue here is not that I dispute your expertise in this area, but that without WP:V references, later readers will have no idea that you intended the modern usages to be supported by those references. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see an issue with the notability before, but I figured it was about time I added more to the article anyway, and so I did. While Simek's handbook is not yet available through Google Books, the other references I've cited are freely viewable through the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Mercia

Cross of Saint Alban

Hello, Bloodofox! I am seeking your support for WikiProject Mercia, a collaborative effort which aims to create, expand, and maintain Mercia-related articles. If you'd like to help, please vote here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

Metabaronic (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Yggdrasil revert

Hi,

I had made two other edits regarding Yggdrasil in Tree (this edit) and Tree worship (this edit). Should they stand or be reverted?

AshLin (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no basis for the claim about Odin "spreading his arms", the source seems to be poor, so I would say yes. Thank you for bringing the edits to my attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercia Project change

Metabaronic has redefined the scope and changed the name of the Mercia Wikiproject to included the rest of Anglo-Saxon England, please consider directing your support again to Wikiproject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Sadads (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't noticed, we have moved to a project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Sadads (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Joking

I'M NOT JOKING!!! I'M JUST HUMOROUS!!! I like to have some fun while I make my point. Nate5713 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Industrialculturehandbook.jpg

Hi there. I am currently working on getting the article Industrial music to good article status, and one of the requirements is to improve the fair use rationale for the cover of the Industrial Culture Handbook image you added a few years ago. Do you know where that image came from? I just need a source to complete the FUR. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot recall where it came from. I wish I could say that I scanned it from my copy, but I can't seem to recall whether I did or not. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

My infobox - Nott is more important goddess of some giant. And all important deities have their infoboxes. I'm just putting boxes because that's seems fair. Article about Nott is long. --Mychele (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, something about Eitri and Bokkr - if Loki isn't a god (it seems he is) what is he? He isn't giant, even his parents are giants. And he is not neutral, he is quite evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychele Trempetich (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The infoboxes don't help in those cases. The information presented is covered in the introduction. Our Germanic mythology articles do not have infoboxes because—at least the editors I've worked with—tend to find them useless and often misleading. A well-written lead is all that is needed in these cases.

Loki is recorded as something between god and jötunn. There's no "evil" in Germanic mythology, everything is quite ambiguous. The dualism of Abrahamic religions is notably absent, and in Germanic religion one can immediately finds many shades of gray. Loki's role as helper or enemy of the gods greatly greatly varies by source. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If Meili is brother of Thor, then he must be a son of Jord, Thor's mother.--Mychele (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Meili's father is Odin, and his mother's name is not provided. He could have a different mother. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Thor says that he is "brother of Meili" not "half-brother". And that's the big difference of having two same parents and just one parent sharing with someone.--Mychele (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These descriptions often employ a lot of poetic license. We can't presume who the mother of Meili is. It's not attested. All we can say is that Odin is the father. On the other hand, if some scholar theorizes that his mother may be Jörð (who, I should note, is Earth personified, which further complicates matters), then we can add their theory (with proper attribution). :bloodofox: (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but the following may be of relevance here:

• Apparently, it was common in 19th century scholarship to consider Meili to be the son of Odin and Jörð. For example:

"Von Thors Bruder Meili wird nichts weiter erwähnt, als dass auch er ein Sohn Odins ist (Sn. Edd. 211. Haustl. ebd. 120); auch die gleiche Mutter, Jörd, ist zu vermuthen, da Thor allein unter den Asen als Meilis Bruder zugenannt wird."

which, translated, reads:

Of Thor's brother Meili nothing further is mentioned save that he, too, is a son of Odin; the same mother, Jörd, is to be assumed, as Thor alone among the Asir is referred to as 'Meili's brother'.

(from: Uhland, Ludwig. (1868). Schriften zur Geschichte der Dichtung und Sage, Vol. 6. Stuttgart: Verlag der J. G. Cotta'schen Buchhandlung. pg. 18.)

This view can be found scattered throughout 19th century scholarship, as, for instance, in (a) Barth, Christian K. (1846). Teutschlands Urgeschichte, Vol. 5. Erlangen: J. J. Palm & Ernst Enke. pg. 396 and (b) Pierer, Heinrich A. (1844). Universallexikon der Gegenwart und Vergangenheit, Vol. 21. Altenburg: H. A. Pierer. pg. 204. I'm sure more citations could be found, though they hardly seem necessary: the view was a popular one, but has not - to my knowledge - seen any support for a long, long time.

• Rydberg considers Meili to be a by-name of Baldr:

Meili, Asa-god, the same as Baldur. Thor commends himself on one occasion as being Odin's son and Meili's brother. In one of his epithets (Foot-meili), the gentle Hoenir is compared with Baldur. The "rain of weapons" is called both Meil-rain and Fal's rain with reference to the "rain of weapons", in which Baldur stood when the gods shot, threw, and hewed at him.

(from: Rydberg, V. (2003). Our Father's Godsaga: Retold for the Young. Lincoln: iUniverse. ISBN: 0-595-29978-4. pg. 191.)

I'm not exactly a Rydberg fan, but the view is, in itself, notable enough to warrant inclusion IMO. --Aryaman (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Great! This exactly the sort of thing I was referring to. I've been meaning to dig around for more Meili article content since I rewrote it, and this information is more than welcome on the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. You are probably right. Mother of Meili could be Jord or other Earth goddess, Fyorgyn, or some other female being.--Mychele (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dagr is personification of day, and his father is god. So, naturally, he must be god too. --Mychele (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

His father is a god, yes, but his mother is nowhere cited as a goddess. Readers can make of the attestations what they will, but we must be precise. As the "theories" section implies, it's also possible that he was considered a sort of demigod heroic figure. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Templates - it seems that you don't like them. In Dagr's article, I made template, but template with Quick reference (see Hephaestus). Person just click on it and see template, but if person don't wanna see it, don't click on it.

Please, when you rever my edit on Dagr, you delete my edit in section "See also". That was not a template, so, pleae, when you wanna move template, move it, but no other thing (if they are correct, off course). Cheers!--Mychele (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

When users have attempted to introduce generic templates to Germanic mythology-related articles, they've always been removed. In these cases, such templates are simply pointless when they're next to a well-written introduction. As for removing your Commons link, sorry about that - I am, however, a big fan of Commons links. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fárbauti

Hi, bloodofox. If you have a minute, please stop by here and voice your opinion on a matter of what should be minor importance, but which I am apparently failing to deal with in a manner satisfactory to all involved. Cheers, --Aryaman (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, no needs, I know now that correct but small things are not very neccessary in article.--Mychele (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Snorri Sturluson states in his Gylfaginning (34) that "[Loki]'s brothers are Býleistr and Helblindi", and several Eddic texts use the Loki-kenning "brother of Býleistr" (bróðir Býleists) (Völuspá, 51; Hyndluljóð, 40; Skáldskaparmál, 16). Loki's brother must be son of Farbauti and Laufey, or just Laufey, or just Farbauti.--Mychele (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are attested as Loki's brothers, but nowhere are the parents of these "brothers" provided. You're assuming that these "brothers" are the product of both of the same two parents. Your assumption is the problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not original reaserch, this is very logical. Brothers by blood have the same parents, or at least, the one same parent. If they aren't sons of Farbauti, then still Laufey can be their mother.--Mychele (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, we don't know their parentage, and therefore we must not produce original research by assuming either way. If some scholar has made this assumption, then we may add that this individual has made such an assumption. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I notice you also like Greek mythology, according to your edit on Aphrodite's article.

In Dagr's page, I wrote before "He is an uncle of Thor". Is that superfluos (but it's correct, and interesting, the same thing as with Farbauti). You remove that, and I notice you don't like making fmily references if we aren't sure who is who to who.--Mychele (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this on the talkpage, where I have presented some information for consideration and requested comments from others. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you on your links. It's interesting, but maybe confusing (Bestla Odin's daughter?).--Mychele (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Something you may find interesting...

Since we're on the topic of the sea in Norse/Germanic mythology, you might enjoy taking a look at this. I wrote it some time ago as a model for future work, and it has some information you might find interesting - particularly in the copious footnotes. (The site itself is something I tinker on when I'm feeling fed up with Wikipedia. I have plans to expand it greatly in the future.) Cheers, --Aryaman (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice article! Our current article on the figure is currently pretty sad in comparison. And yes, very interesting! A good chunk of this I wasn't familiar with. I look forward to seeing more. If you need a hand sometime, let me know. :) Great images, too! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Laufey

I used some of your links and I edit Laufey, but you can off course finished.--Mychele (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Laufey is an interesting subject, and I'll go through the article and rework it to Wikipedia's good article standards when I have the time. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What is gender of Jormungandr? Somewhere I wrote that she is sister of Fenrir, and in wikipedia article that he is son of Loki.--Mychele (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jörmungandr is male (and yes, our currently article on him is seriously lacking, I realize...) :). :bloodofox: (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Are Aegir and Gymir really the same god-giant?--Mychele (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Our current Ægir article is very poor, and it could really use a complete rewrite to Good article criteria to make the entire matter more clear to everyone. Right now I'm dealing with a Thor article rewrite, but in the future I'll get around to taking care of it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote Aegir and now looks better then before.--Mychele (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger

G'day. I've noticed that you're quite active on the Norse mythology-related articles; nice work! I recently stumbled upon this. Do you think it should be merged with Æsir? Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Hayden. I think that, currently, the article should just redirect, since the current article is unreferenced and contains some outright misinformation. I'll turn it into a redirect for now. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Astronomy in medieval Islam

Hi,

Your call for a rewrite of Astronomy in medieval Islam is welcome and appropriate. Unfortunately, the problem with this article is only part of a larger problem stemming from the extensive edits of the lead editor of that article. For further details see this RfC. You're help on the cleanup project would be most welcome. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'm glad to help, but I'm afraid that I'm quite busy with several articles that I'm rushing to get in order, so outside of calls for nuking that article (and anyone like it), I can't contribute much else. I will, however, say that I have no idea why Jagged 85 isn't outright perma-banned. Could his offenses possibly be anymore destructive to the project? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thor rewrite

Hi Bloodofox, I noticed your edit summary on Thor, and peaked at the draft in your sandbox. Good luck with the rewrite!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Brianann! Thank you. :) It's long over due. I hope to get the Odin and Frigg articles into respectable shape sometime soon, too. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the rewrite so far. I ran across an image recently (in a work from the late 17th century), and your Thor article reminded me that I meant to upload it some time ago, but forgot. Maybe you can use it.

from Trogillus Arnkiel's Cimbrische Heyden-Religion (1702 Edition)

Also, if you check some of the older literature - for example, Nyerup's 1816 Übersicht der Geschichte des Studiums der skandinavischen Mythologie (Online Edition) - you'll find some interesting information regarding the history behind the particular trias depicted in this image (i.e. "Freija" instead of Freyr), as also in the image already in your article (though, interestingly, with "Frigg"). Cheers, --84.75.167.144 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Actually, I just remembered I had another image, too (also from Arnkiel; see right):

from Trogillus Arnkiel's Cimbrische Heyden-Religion (1702 Edition)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.167.144 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The picture left looks like it's depicting High, Just as High and Third. (Mychelle)

More images in high quality? Excellent! We're on our way to quite a database of Germanic mythology graphics. I think the specific incident in Adam of Bremen's account is pretty fascinating, and there's plenty said about "Fricco" there (in fact, we could use an article about that very subject). I wish you would consider coming back and editing these Germanic mythology articles regularly again. The amount of hits that these articles get on a daily basis (in other words, their Google rankings) shows how extremely influential they are. We make a real difference by turning them into something of quality.

And Mychelle, yes, you're correct, there is a parallel there. Adam of Bremen also talks about a triple throne that is quite similar to the one Snorri places High, Just-As-High, and Third on. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They are even depicted as three names of Odin - on thrones and with crowns.--Mychele (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although they may not be hypostases of Odin; it's quite possible that they were simply convenient names for the throne-sitting Asgard-dwellers that "fooled" Gylfi (and conveniently preserving for us an all-important key). If the three figures are to be understood as Odin, Odin does not otherwise appear as a trinity, albeit there may be something to the fact that the name of Odin and the names of his two brothers originally alliterated. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What you think - is the depiction of the sun here represantation of goddess Sol?--Mychele (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just the Sun, unpersonified as a goddess, typical of illustrations of the time. These images are roughly based off of Adam of Bremen's account of statues of the gods at the Temple at Uppsala (albeit in these "Fricco" is depicted as either Freyja and Frigg and are notably lacking a large, erect penis...). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to see Odin as a young man. Or he is maybe depicted feminine with long hair? Thor also looks feminine, that's vierd.--Mychele (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have seen very few decent depictions of the gods. Presuming they would be wearing period-specific fashion, I have yet to see one that accurately depicts how they would have looked during the Migration Period or even the Viking Age. For the most part, depictions of Germanic gods from the modern age tend to make them look like they're either straight out of Wagner's operas or from the Roman Empire, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw this recent National Geographic article the other day, and it reminded me of the rewrite "Thor's Hammer" Found in Viking Graves: Norse warriors saw "thunderstones" as protection against lightning. Maybe you guys'll be interested in it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Brianann. I've been meaning to add some information about this to the article for a while now. A few yeas ago I read a paper by Hilda Ellis Davidson about this very subject, where she goes into a lot more detail; Davidson, H. R. (1965). "Thor's Hammer" in Folklore, vol. 75, no. 1 (spring 1965). It's available on JSTOR. Enjoy! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Moon

I've opened a discussion of your recent changes to the Etymology section. I was quite happy with your additions, but not so sure the subtractions were a good idea, given they seemed appropriately sourced, so i'm looking for other views. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded there. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fjörgynn and Freund

I saw your Thor rewrote and I must mention that identity of Thor's mother is not generally excepted - she is either Jord or Fyorgyn, or that two goddesses are the same one.--Mychele (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, can you explain this image - . Are Baldr and Mimir figures on the right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychele Trempetich (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Thor rewrite is not at all complete, and the attestations will be handled as they're presented. There is a very interesting section about Fjörgynn to be had.

As for the Freund piece, I believe that you are correct in identifying Baldr and Mímir as the two figures on the right, whereas it seems to me that the rest are all norns. The piece was damaged in a fire, but I think it gives it an interesting look of its own. There are some images of it prior to the fire damage floating around.

It's a particularly curious depiction because nowhere in the mythology is there such a scene. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's strange that Mimir is needing a consel from norns, because he is the wisest.--Mychele (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note

I have no wish to start an edit war with you, so I would ask, please discuss such major changes to featured articles on the talk page before you make them and also, stop insulting other editors. Serendi^podous 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What insult, where? Are you talking about my edit summary where I refer to the section as a "confused mess"? Unfortunately, that is exactly what it was. As for the inane insertions in the etymology section of Moon, where you deleted English month in favor of inserting Latin and Greek, the dubiousness speaks for itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Moon

Please do talk about the change before just reverting me: I gave a more detailed explanation at the talk page. I am very happy to see that section being improved so well (I deal with the planetary science side of the article myself), but if possible it would be really good to keep the section tightly focused. This article grows and grows very easily... Iridia (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you had made a post about it there. I will take a look. Thank you for the notification. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Image : Mjöllnir pendant from southern Sweden

Hello,

Your SVG vectorization has been done.

The topic is here.

You are welcome to give some feedback. Arnaud Ramey (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have left feedback there. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an update there ! Arnaud Ramey (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A new update. Arnaud Ramey (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Troll article

why did you delete the whole troll article? It was large and extensive and you have replaced it with little more than a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myron Mumbles (talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quantity and quality are not the same thing. The old troll article was full of misinformation and consisted mainly of confused rambling. I replaced the article with solid, sourced information that can well be expanded upon. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Troll edit. I put back my original contribution but dleted the reference to imdb. So Now it is unreferenced. I still say it should stand as it is valid. P.S you and me clearly have alot in common, i see we both are fans of norse mythology and scandinavian folklore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myron Mumbles (talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, then we do have some things in common. :) Don't take offense at my removal of your information; the problem is that one of Wikipedia's core policies that all information requires a solid, verifiable reference that does not involve original research on the part of the editor (WP:PROVEIT). Without a proper citation to back up an addition, the information can be (and should be) removed by anyone at any time. I have put a tag next to the paragraph that needs a reference. If you need help, please let me know. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

L.B.Hansen

Intro to Ragnarok stamp with Naglfar & Midgard serpent

If you or Haukur should need any additional information on Ludvig B. Hansen I may be able to help as he was my great grandfather. His daughter Hansine Hansen was my grandmother. I have hundreds of his etchings and most of the tools he used to do them. I would love to know more about him. Oh, I do have his birth date as well as his date in passing. Just let me know,(Nstag8er (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC))

Hello! More graphics would certainly be welcome, particularly involving Norse mythology. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Naglfar

The article Naglfar you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Naglfar for things which need to be addressed. Aaron north (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Swedish and Danish articles on Naglfar uses a Faroe 2003 issued stamp as an illustration (part of a Norse mythology series), which is in commons. Its the only usable illustration I know of Naglfar itself. What do you think? Deanlaw (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. This is actually the only image I have seen of Naglfar. However, is the copyright status really clear? I seem to remember there being some business about that, and that being why we avoided using them in the past...? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Corn sugarHowardJWilk (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the redirection of "corn sugar." Yours is a good solution; although it's not back to what it was, I think under the present circumstances you clearly explain the disambiguation. My apologies for the crudity of my editing. I really ought to learn more about how to use wikipedia.HowardJWilk (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. If I can help you with anything just let me know. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatchet burial

Thanks for your note. I have replied on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Norrœna Society

A headsup that I have successfully opened a line of communication with Norroena on their talk and since they are mentioning your edits, you may want to look in. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Yngvadottir. I will check it out. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

John Lindow nominated for deletion

I'm afraid I cannot find sources satisfying WP:PROF for John Lindow, which you created. Hopefully you or someone else can. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Yngvadottir. Unfortunately I now have no time to devote to anything on Wikipedia outside of getting the Heimdallr article to a respectable state. I also have little experience writing about academics on Wikipedia (although I've gotten Davidson's article into decent shape, and perhaps a few others). Thank you for the notification, however. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest any sources, other than the departmental pages at Berkeley? or a major chair he has held (he looks to be older but I can't find a proper c.v. online) or major journal he edited? I'm thinking you must have had a rationale for writing the article so you may know something that could be substantiated. I had noticed you were around less, apologies again, but I was surprised to find he has one. I've held off on creating Ursula Dronke or Klaus Düwel until I can be sure sources match WP:PROF, which is hard to do with many academics until there's an obit, as with Peter Foote. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the three works that I own that are either authored by Lindow (Swedish Legends and Folklore, his Norse Mythology handbook) or feature him as a primary editor (the great Medieval Folklore dictionary) only a small blurb appears. The Medieval Folklore and Norse Mythology handbooks feature the same blurb. However, he's probably the most visible contemporary scholar in the Anglosphere when it comes to this subject and one of the very few who makes the effort to publish to the public. I understand what you mean about the obituary issue and I do understand why if the article gets deleted. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rydberg

According to the theories, the brother of Bestla and son of Bolthorn is Mimir. He is mentioned in Hávamál, as a father of a nameless giant who taught Odin nine magic charms or songs. Rydberg considers this nameless giant to be Mimir.--Mychele (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mychele, placing any such theories into articles requires the name of the author, why they said it, and where (a reference). I must also point out that Rydberg's theories have generally long been dismissed. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But who else can be this giant except Mimir? And just this. I found some work of some author and I will post here. See this In the theories of Viktor Rydberg, Sinmara is the wife of Mímir, the mother of Nótt.

I don't know from were this came out.--Mychele (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am unable to view the link you've provided above. However, I must point out that there are many wise eotens in Germanic mythology. For example, Odin performs a battle of wits with Vafþrúðnir in Vafþrúðnismál. The vast majority of tales and sources have been long lost and we are teased by this fact throughout the record. As for Rydberg, we can state—with proper accompanying reference—that Rydberg theorized this or that, but we cannot state it as fact. Rydberg is particularly infamous for this sort of thing, and so I highly recommend that you proceed with caution when dealing with his theories. He has not been taken seriously in academia for over 100 years. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I could; can you see it here? This is not Rydberg; it refers to the fact that Hávamál has Bölthorn as Mímir's father and Bestla as Mímir's sister; of course according to Gylfaginning Bor married Bestla, daughter of Bölthorn. It would be a whole lot easier as well as being necessary in an encyclopedia if you would reference these things when you add them, Michele. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha, now I can see it, thanks. I've noticed that most of Norse creation story-related articles that we have here on Wikipedia are quite bad at the moment and could well use a rewrite to GA standards. They're definitely on my list. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a step outside

Hey there, Bloodfox (and thanks for keeping Loki serious). Have you had a look at this? It somehow bothers me, especially as PZ Myers has linked to it in his widely-read Pharyngula (blog). I was wondering if you've ever seen any scholarly argument or a primary source backing this claim up. Trigaranus (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Trigaranus. What a nonsensical blog post! No, there exists no primary source in support of the proposed Ash Wednesday-Völsung link. But, unfortunately, he's not the first to make similarly outlandish claims; here is an example of an error-ridden 19th century publication doing basically the same thing: [4]).

That said, there are indeed some scholars out there questioning what influence then-recently-converted Germanic peoples may have had on Ash Wednesday. For example, here's a publication with some commentary regarding the ash-smearing ritual: [5]. A fascinating topic! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Very cool reading you linked there! I'll have a closer look after work, thanks! Trigaranus (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I am glad to help. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and Paganism

I'm giving you a day or two to explain yourself on the article talk page; if not, the addition of the tag will be reverted. AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Response posted on said talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Hi. Just wondering, is your user name, Bloodofox, a reference to those teams of people on horseback who join together with packs of specialized hunting dogs to chase down and kill a fox? -Aquib (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You seem to be misreading the preposition. For the name origin, click here and ctrl + f "blood of ox". :bloodofox: (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly what I expected. Interesting. -Aquib (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User is trying to communicate

...on Talk:Easter Bunny. I have left him a 3RR warning but you should respond to him to help. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I got this message just as I posted my response to him. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Very good.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Heimdallr

Sorry the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is getting a little heated. We should be on the same side, since we are in 100% agreement on the content of the article—since you pointed out the part in the body which I indeed hadn't read. I still don't think protection is necessary, since only one IP is involved, and he will be blocked if he keeps it up. No hard feelings I hope? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No hard feelings. :) I just posted a response there that I will now strike out (I just saw this). :bloodofox: (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've retracted my post as well. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor has started hopping, so I've semi-protected for two weeks. If he gives you more trouble after that, let me know :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the help, Feezo. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's spare ourselves the usual main page edits...

And let you loose on Wikipedia:Featured topics/Members of the Gregorian mission - where all the conversion attempts took place. You'll probably want to fiddle with most of those (grins). May also need to fiddle with Wilfrid. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! And they're so well developed no less. Hark, the fiddling cometh... :D :bloodofox: (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agora (film)

I'm a little confused as to why you think my paragraph contains original research. I have documented my sources. In fact, I have more documentation than all other intro paragraphs combined. The skepticism of the movies historicity is expanded more in the article below. Have you watched the film? If so then what I am writing about is hard to miss. Many people coming to wikipedia desire a historical critique of the film. This is why I went to the page. I felt what was there needed expanding. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. -toverton

Please see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. If a conclusion is not explicitly made in a source provided, or a source is not provided at all, it is likely to fail either policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval art

There is a request for comment active on this page, not a request for vandalism. It has only been running 24 hrs. You have removed a statement that any general book on Islamic art will make on its first page, as well as the tagged supposedly contentious one. This is unhelpful to the process. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, John, but you're going to have to adopt a more convincing position than "now you too are removing my unsourced claim, so I consider it vandalism" for your refusal to source. Get a source or give it up. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Norse mythology

Last summer I show great interest in Norse mythology, and even today, when this interest is not so huge, I sometimes look at some of articles written by you. I admire you and want to thank you for sharing your knowledge (and verses from Eddas, but is this an insult of copy rights?) and please, if I have a question about this very interesting field, can you anser it? xD Michelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.34.198 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What kind words, Michelle. :) I am glad I can help and I always appreciate getting feedback. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask them. Regarding the stanzas and small prose quotes from the Eddas that you mention, the stanzas are almost always from public domain works (which are almost always just as good, if not better, than the more recentPoetic Edda translations), and the prose quotes are generally only used when they cannot be appropriately paraphrased (details can be crucial, after all, and the lines are not always entirely straightforward). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just said the truth - before you, I didn't know that Norse mythology is very complex and special, I tought it is just another group of myths and very nice literature. Now I have very different picture of it, and I can say, Norse myths are far more great then Greek (not mention Roman). Can you please see this talk - Talk:Mímir, I posted something there. --Michelle (I don't know why, but when I log in wikipedia, I cannot edit anything. I will fix that problem later, but now I am working as an unregistered user.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.203.210 (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Michelle. I will answer your question and give the page some more attention within the next few days to make the matter more clear. It's been some years since I rewrote the article and it doesn't appear to meet the standards I aim at. Again, I'm happy to hear that I've helped! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I edited Bolthorn and I move his page on his Norse name. I red that his name means "evil thorn". It is that true? I saw your edits at Bestla and wrote something about her at Mimir's page.

That's one of the potential readings of the name Bölþorn. I intend to rewrite that article as well in time. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How to nominate one article to be the good article?-Michelle

Hello again Michelle. To get an article nominated for Good Article-status, one must first look over and personally check to see if an article meets the qualifications (here) for the status. After, one must submit the article for nomination (here). The latter process can take months, depending on editor interest and/or backlog size. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bronze Age

It's not my job to add the "Bronze Age" material in the article on List of inventions in medieval Islam, so please refrain from removing existing material just because you haven't made any effort to add the "Bronze Age" content. OK ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

An objection has been raised by another user, an objection I see as valid. In the mean time, I suggest you discuss it out on the talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

BNP

There is a discussion open on the British National Party in relation to the fascist label, i can see you have made comment on this before and wouls appreciate your input, thanks.U6j65 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jolly Old Elf, the Old Man . . . and Elves

Thanks for making me aware of interesting debates . . . although I remain very leery of the debating side of Wikipedia. It so often seems to boil down to a clash of conceptual reference systems or different tastes in academics. I passed on the Óðinn/Santa Claus issue to someone more up on that aspect of theories about Yuletide than I am - who agreed that it's likely. But I've personally heard Thor associated with the Santa Claus image just as often. He's jollier, more associated with helping the common man, and the goat cart is a smaller step away from the reindeer sleigh - he also had confirmed appeal to the Sami, who are usually to be suspected as the vector when reindeer come into a story :-) And when you give Sleipnir food is at the end of the grain harvest - the last sheaf - rather than at Yule. Of course Grimm and many of the other academics had an Odinic bias because they thought of the pantheon as having a strong patriarch on the model of the Greek. And things got remembered differently in different parts of the Germanic world, even discounting ancient differences - I saw you citing Dutch customs in the talk-page discussion, and that's not an area where we have many reminiscences of Thor as far as I recall.

The article on Odin is indeed bad, and the separate article on Wodan is a nightmare. I am not at all sure it is wise to have separate articles, but Odin defies simplification at the best of times. However, he has enough fanboys that I don't watchlist his article for vandalism as I do Thor.

Re: elves, I have no particular expertise in Tolkien - and teasing out his sources and changes is a specialized field all by itself. However, you mentioned an intention to work on Elf and I see you began doing so. Karen Jolly's book is simply listed there, and Stephan Grundy's isn't even mentioned. Do you have access to those? I have both, and have been intending for a while to have at Æcerbot using the former.

But I've been a bit timid of late and have done relatively little heathen-related editing. Although you may have noticed I just created Loka Táttur :-)

Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You're obviously knowledgeable and well read in this area, and your opinion is valued. That's an interesting point about Thor as well; after all, he was considerably more popular than Odin among the general heathen populace, and I've also noticed the Odinic bias in scholarship (I note that Folkvangr very rarely even gets mentioned alongside Valhalla, for example, despite the profound notion of a female figure, Freyja, taking half of the dead from Odin). It's very unfortunate that this hasn't been handled in modern scholarship; I think there's a strong case to be made here for heathen survival, and drawing public interest to Germanic paganism can only help us (i.e. wouldn't it be nice if more universities offered Old Norse?).

The Odin article has long needed a rewrite, and I agree that splitting it up is a problem. Of course, there's really not much basis for the split; as far as we know, the difference between the "Odins" seem to be largely restricted to language and there are few pre-Viking Age attestations of the god. I would simply handle a rewrite of the Odin article exactly as I did my rewrite of the Thor article (attestations handled chronologically before delving into theories), while changing Wodanaz, etc. to simple redirects to Odin. In my opinion, the Odin article is currently the worst article on Wikipedia on Germanic myth/Germanic pagan matters, yet unfortunately also one of the highest profile ones. If you'd like to try your hand at rewriting it, I'd be glad to help. Unfortunately, I have few of my books at the moment; I will again be in Scandinavia for the next few months.

My personal interest in Tolkien is basically limited to pointing out the more obvious Germanic influences, and I ended up on the Tolkien page after rewriting Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar and making Svartálfar and Svartálfaheimr. Unfortunately, due to one editor in particular, what should have been a simple task has become mired down for no evident reason, and basically turned into simple trolling over at Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar. That said, I would indeed like to rewrite the Elf article as I did the Troll and Dwarf (Germanic mythology) articles, but, as I mentioned, I am away from my books at the moment. Shippey's The Shadow-Walkers would probably also be handy for almost all of the articles mentioned in this paragraph.

It's great to have a Loka Táttur article, and I am looking forward to see what you do with the Æcerbot article. :) Have you considered making an article for the so-called Thor Song ("Tord af Hafsgaard", etc.)? It would sit nicely next to a Loka Táttur article and I've long wanted to bring that it up on the Thor, Loki, and Freyja articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up on your suggestion, but it's the reverse of the Loka Táttur situation: I can find the text but I don't find enough scholarly discussion to justify an article. Do you know of any? The variant versions in Danish and Swedish may well be conspiring with Google's problems with alt. chars. (I still have Sonargöltr on my list to do but the ǫ plus the variation between o and ó for the first vowel mean I'll have to comb through my own xerox collection.) Can you point me to anywhere to put it over the notability threshhold? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Tord of Hafsgaard" seems quite notable to me, and while I can't think of any scholarly work solely handling it off of the top of my head, it gets a mention here and there, despite its obscurity. I can think of no reason why we would not need a Wikipedia article on it; essentially anything involving mythology is fair game for an article on Wikipedia. I would really like to see a Sonargöltr article, as well as a Boar Helmet article, actually. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Friday

From what I have understand, you are good in Old Norse language. Can you tell me is the name Frida (Frieda) somehow connected to Freyja? I see some connections in Friday, which is "Frida's day" (Frida = Freyja?). And is the word "thorn" connected to the Thor's name? (Of course, this is likely just a folk etymology, but I always make puns with this two words.)--Mychele (talk)

Hello Mychele. My Old Norse skills are pretty limited, but I'm working for that to change. Friday, in English, is actually Frige's day (it stems from Old English Frigedæg). Old English Frige is cognate to Old Norse Frigg, and one may presume that they were much alike, but our attestations handling Frigg are limited to Old Norse works supplemented with a small amount of Old High German and Lombardic material. The blurry question of exactly how Frigg and Freyja were connected further clouds the situation. Wikipedia's Frigg article is pretty bad, and I've long wanted to see a rewrite for it.

As for thorn and Thor, the Old English form of Thor (modernly reintroduced from Old Norse Thórr, actually) was Thunor, and Old English thorn was the same as it is now. Comparing the two, you'll notice that they looked far less similar back then (Thunor vs. thorn).

Languages change over time, and, as you can see, Old English often appears dramatically different than modern English. The branch of linguistics that handles language change and etymology is historical linguistics, which I recommend that you look deeper into if you are interested in learning exactly why and how words change over time. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cibus, -i, m. — food

I am about to insert Latin transcript in article food, so in article will be more information + Latin is in common very appreciated dead language. Why do you think that there is no point for keep this Latin trancription, which is, for my opinion of high importance? Regards Alex ^discussion 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Aleksa, I am not sure what you are referring to here. Can you provide an article diff for me? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. Alex ^discussion 17:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I stand by my original point. Ask yourself: what if Lebensmittel was there instead? Both insertions would be oddly random and are totally inappropriate for the subject matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sumerian Mythology

Hi there Bloodofox, nice to come across another mythology fan. I see your point about the Indo-European and various other pre-Greek mythology that the Styx could have come from. The Egyptians have their version too no doubt. A.R. George calls it the "Babylonian Styx" and I was wondering if you'd mind calling it that. If not, no bother, it's not too important. Would be interested in your opinions on some of my other Sumerian Mythology articles. Was thinking of trying to push one or two, like the Kesh temple hymn or the Gudea Cylinders (in my sandbox still) for Good Article status and any help on that would be appreciated. Regards, Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bedson, it is nice to encounter you as well. As for George's "Babylonian Styx", I would advise leaving it out of the article; it not only misleadingly implies a direct connection between the two but also promotes a Greco-Roman bias. And while my skills are limited in these cultural spheres, I'll gladly take a look at your work and see if there is anything I can do to help. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology

Hi Blood,

Great work on the List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology! I have nominated the list to take a slot in the new "Today's Featured List" section of the main page here. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Neelix! Great, glad to hear it. I've edited the lead a bit (a while back I clarified a few things on the valkyrie article that ought to be clarified on the list as well, i.e. Folkvangr), and I will check out the discussion to see if there's anything I should add. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Isis

I am going to revert your rollback to my edits to Isis. The source I cited was not another Wikipedia article, but Tacitus himself. I did link it to Wikisource, which has English and Latin source text for Tacitus's Germania. But this isn't the same thing as using another Wikipedia article as a reference. Wikisource is its own thing, and can contain sources, and when you're dealing with ancient history reliable = what you got. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see where it is covered in another article now. Your edit note was mildly confusing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

There is an incident you may be involved in. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks, that was very sweet of you! And I haven't forgotten about either Sonargöltr or Tord af Hafsgaard; I'm just still enmeshed in illuminated buildings. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to them! :bloodofox: (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice you were editing again earlier today . . . look above, one has gone blue :-) In fact it is causing problems at the DYK nominations page; I'm thinking because the refs make people blench '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can't resist, even when I ought to be doing other things, it seems. ;) And I am glad to see it—the Lombardic information is particularly interesting. I'm looking forward to more. :) By the way, I recently made a list of major articles needing major rewrites: [6] :bloodofox: (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

deleted mention of Cold Spring Records and Andrew King partnership ending on Sol Invictus (band) page

I've left some remarks on your deletion of my previous posts on the talk page of the mentioned entry. Maybe you'd like to respond to this.--Robert Kerber (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't delete

I put it in words that you can understand.--24.25.237.226 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Norse_cosmology_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is sad to see an old man accuse modern language for being the degeneration of society. Perhaps it is your inability to see new interpretations that is most degenerate here. Strange that you didn't attack me for my use of the word hamlet. --24.25.237.226 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You know I am right --24.25.237.226 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While I have no idea what you're talking about, I think that you may live a much more fulfilling internet life with an obscure blog of some sort. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Norsemen

Hey, i've recently made a rough expansion to the Norsemen article. Since you seem like an expert in Norse history and culture perhaps you could take a look. :) Alphasinus (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'm pretty swamped at the moment, but I will gladly look the article over when my time frees up. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Horagalles and Tiermes

I just did a thorough rewrite of Horagalles, adding several references. In so doing, I discovered we also had an article on Tiermes. I've proposed merging this into Horagalles: discussion set up at Talk:Horagalles#Merger proposal. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Yngvadottir, that seems like a perfectly logical idea, and good work here (as usual). 20:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How are my sources "not reliable" ?

I have spent a long time researching this subject. Please explain to me how the sources I listed are somehow lying while the other sources on this page are ok. In the mean time I will restore my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, one of the books you're using ("A Field Guide to Demons, Fairies, Fallen angels, and Other Subversive Spirits") as a reference does not appear to be reliable source, as it is appears to neither be a work from an academic publishing house nor the work of a scholar working in the appropriate field. Further, the generalities and wording you've employed raises red flags, such as skipping over complexities, employing the notorious gloss "faery", and referring to a Huldra point-blank as a "small troll". As a result, your references need to be checked for reliability, an author's specific opinion, and/or unsubstantiated claims. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I will do so as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now provided a reference-by-reference analysis on the troll talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of my work.

Ok I admit that I am not an academic, just an amateur reader. I was lazy in not linking sources to exact points, but I was unaware of how insanely strict people can be on here. I will correct the info I added but I wish to rebut some of the things you said about my sources.

Reference 1 - Peter Narváez (1997). "The Good People: New Fairylore Essays", page 118. University Press of Kentucky ISBN 9780813109398

Here are quotes I am referring to from the Alan Bruford paper on page 118:

"Christiansen* himself admits that the same tales may be told of either type of being, but contends that "in Norwegian tradition a line of distinction is drawn between the trolls and the huldre-folk"."

"...but admits that the question of "whether the trolls and huldre-folk came from the same stock or had different origins altogether" is still unanswered. However, the use of "trow" in Orkney and Shetland to mean something very like the "family" of beings covered by huldre in Norway suggests that they may come from the same stock. Huldre are sometimes the same size as humans and sometimes small, like Gaelic fairies (sidhichea), and they are grotesque rather than beautiful, with long noses or cow's tails."

"It seems possible that "troll" was taken overseas by the early pagan settlers of Orkney and Shetland as a catchall term for supernatural beings who were to be respected and avoided rather than worshipped, before it became specialized as a description of the larger and more menacing ones and huldre was developed as the general term for the rest along with their Christian origin legend: but the latter may have reached Orkney only to become corrupted, as we shall see."

• The same Reidar Thorstein Christiansen who wrote "Folktales of Norway", which I referenced.

References 2 - Reidar Thorstein Christiansen (1964). "Folktales of Norway". University Of Chicago Press ISBN 9780226105109

I admit this was a cheap reference, having not read the source directly I took quotes from others who had read it, who did appear to agree with each other on the idea of Huldrefolk appearing both beautiful and gruesome. I will retract this reference for these reasons.

Reference 3 - Carol K. Mack, Dinah Mack (1999). "A field guide to demons, fairies, fallen angels, and other subversive spirits". Holt Paperbacks ISBN 9780805062700

Ok this is not an accademic paper (I am no academic as I have stated). I was just relating information from the book about the appearence of Huldrefolk etc. I will retract this reference as you obviously don't find it strong enough.

Reference 4 - John Arnott MacCulloch (1930). "Eddic Mythology, The Mythology of All Races In Thirteen volumes, Vol. II". Cooper Square Publishers. ISBN B000KZD0BG

For this article I suggest that you read it properly and also try to count more accurately. Between pages 219 - 232 Troll/Trolls appears FOUR times not once as you claim. The word "Trold" as in Trolkfolk (a word obviously meaning Troll) occurs EIGHT times. Here are the various page numbers and quotes which I am referring to -

Page 219 - "The Eddic Alfar are the earliest known elves, akin to the Anglo-Saxon ylfe (singular oelf). The scanty notices of them show that they had a loftier nature than the elves of later beliefs. They are not said to be dangerous or mischievous, nor are they yet confused with evil trolls through Christian enmity to the old paganism."

(This states that in early times the Alfar (or Elves) had not YET been confused with the evil Trolls (whatever the Trolls originally were), indicating that this indeed occured later on.)

Page 223 - "Another class of beings, the Trolls, are more monstrous than elfin — giants, fiends, demons, as in the Eddas and Sagas, yet they possess certain elfin characteristics. Though the elves as such are little known in Norway, there are different classes of beings who have elfin traits. The Troldfolk or Tusser, trolls, gnomes, or sprites, may be as large as men, and they possess houses, cattle, and churches. Music is heard from their abodes in the mountains whither they often carry mortal maidens."

(This shows the Trolls or Troldfolk taking on aspects of the earlier Elves. These Trolls are as large as men so obviously not the giant Jötunn Trolls.)

Page 224 - "Danish legend connects the elfin race with the rebel angels, who, when cast out of Heaven, fell into mounds or barrows — the Trold-folk, Bjerg-trolds, or Bjerg-folk-or into the moors-the Elver-folk or Elle-folk.” These Trold-folk differ from the Icelandic Trolls, and resemble the dwarfs. Their mounds, which contain treasure, may be seen raised on red pillars on S. John’s Eve..."

(Although these creatures, who resemble dwarfs, do differ from Icelandic Trolls (meaning the giant kind) THEY ARE STILL CALLED "TROLD-FOLK". It does not matter that they differ from another kind of Troll, the reason I am including them on this Wikipedia page is that the word Troll can mean different folkloric entities eg. smaller creatures resembling dwarfs, as well as the giant Jötunn kind.)

Page 228 - "The word Vættir may be regarded as covering any divine or semi-divine spirits, but it is applied to a class of spirits of a tutelary kind, guardians of the land or of parts of it, and related to the land much as the Fylgja was to a person. Such spirits were called Land-vættir, not easily distinguished from the Alfar, and they may have included, if they are not ultimately derived from, the spirits of the dead."

(This shows that the Vættir may be linked to the Alfar and spirits of the dead.)

Page 231 - "In spite of this the Vættir are remembered in one form or another. In Norway they are still looked upon as tutelary spirits, dwelling in Vætte-hougar, mounds at which offerings used to be laid, in trees too sacred to be touched, or in waterfalls, though they are also called Trolds or Nisser. In some districts they differ but little from the Huldre-folk. The Danish Vetter have traits similar to those of Elle-folk and Trolds, but are on the whole regarded as evil.

(This shows the Vættir also called Trolds, which would be the smaller Trolls not the giant ones.)

Page 270 - "In all Teutonic lands, especially in their mountainous districts, dwarfs have been a subject of popular superstition, and their traits as seen in the Eddas reappear along with many others. They are called Bjergfolk, Unterjordiske, Unterirdische, Erdleute, Bergsmiedlein, Erdmännlein, Stillevolk, Kleinevolk, and by other names."

(This clearly shows the link between the Dwarves and Bjergfolk, another name for Trold-folk in Denmark, as well as their dwelling in the mountains, also a home of the Trold-folk in Norway.)

Lower on page 223, the author goes on to talk about Huldra and the Huldre-folk. Along with the quotes from Alan Bruford's paper, this seems to indicate that these Huldre-folk, as well as the related Icelandic term "Huldu-folk" (hidden folk) mentioned on the same page, were a different word for these smaller Trolls, Troldfolk or the Trows of Orkney and Shetland. Also on page 231 it says that the Vættir or Trolds "In some districts they differ but little from the Huldre-folk." "Troll" was also a later word meaning Jötunn (giant) from Norse mythology, but these smaller Trolls, Troldfolk etc. were probably later words used for, or confused with 1) the Norse Alfar (Elves), as shown on pages 224, 2) the Dvergar (Dwarves), as shown on page 224 and 270, and maybe 3) Spirits of the dead, as shown on pages 228 (Vættir may be spirits of the dead) and page 231 (Vættir may be called Trolds), and also in the links to dwelling in burial mounds on page 224 and in mountains on page 223. In Norse paganism, the dead were sometimes believed to dwell within the burial mound (See Draugr, Haugbui - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draugr ) or within mountains known as "Helgafjell" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Norse_paganism ). With both the dead and the Dvergar dwelling in the mountains it is easy to see how these two concepts could have merged into the Troldfolk / Bjergfolk idea. I could go into the links between the Alfar and the dead (both residing in the burial mound) but this would take longer than I have time for. I would however reference - Davidson, Hilda (1968). The Road to Hel: A Study of the Conception of the Dead in Old Norse Literature. ISBN 0-8371-0070-4 . All this may seem to be my "original research" but it is based on the quotes I have made and I think it is good information on this subject. Do you think it would qualify as information suitable for this page?

I admit that my references to changelings were in error. This is something I have taken from secondary sources, related to "Folktales of Norway" which I haven't read. It is not found in MacCulloch's work as I wrongly stated. he makes a reference to Dwarfs replacing children with changelings, on page 272 which I for some reason misinterpreted. I will remove this reference.

In labeling this information as "Small Trolls" I may have made an error. What I ment was SMALLER Trolls, as they are simply smaller than the giant Jötunn Trolls eg. they may be man sized or dwarf sized.

To further my point, I would like to point you to the online Encyclopædia Britannica entry on "Troll" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/606347/troll "In later tales trolls often are man-sized or smaller beings similar to dwarfs and elves. They live in mountains, sometimes steal human maidens, and can transform themselves and prophesy." It looks like they agree with me on this.

Conclusion - I have admitted that I am only a lay reader on this subject. You may be some academic on Trolls or something but I don't think you have been entirely fair to all the references I made. I agree on some of your criticisms and will thus alter my input to this article. I hope you will be reasonable about this and please don't simply delete ALL my stuff straight away when some of it is clearly backed up by good sources. If you can give me advise on how to alter what I have done please do. That is what Wikipedia should be about, aiding one another to find a consensus reality. Thanks.

Hello again. I will respond to this as time permits. The information is now looking better, but it still has some issues that need to be sorted out, and I will explain. Thanks for putting the time in. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I await your helpful input on a favorite subject of mine.

No problem, this is a good way to expand the article. I'll go through the material you've re-added and run it by the sources and rewrite it to Wikipedia:Good article criteria. As you are interested in this subject matter, you will probably find most of the articles I've gotten to Good Article status of interest. Have a look. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my troll info. I busted a gut to get all that stuff properly page numbered haha. Yeah you have done a lot of great work on Norse mythology, more than I could ever hope to put in. Just glad I could add something of quality myself. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't thank me about the troll article yet—I need to go through the sources and work it all out to GA specs, but if there are any problems you may have with my rewrite of it to those specifications, then you're welcome to talk to me about it. And I feel your pain about the time consumption; pumping out a solid generally takes a long while quite a long while—and take a look at valkyrie, for example, yikes! Regarding the articles I've produced in the past, thanks. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you still want to do work on my info. Can I just say that while you do check my sources to establish proper facts on this topic, I think it is important to remember that when we are dealing with folklore, there is no hard science to it all. It is based on the best guesses of people who look into the related, sometimes conflicting stories of the pagan / early christian past. The best we can do is look at what was said in old tales, compare these tales to what little we know of the pagan and early christian religion of the area. Then we have to compare educated people's opinions on what they deduct from this. It seems like no kind of 2 + 2 = 4 situation to me. There are possible meanings, opinions, and comparisons or combinations of opinions, in order to establish some consensus reality on this. These are basically old tales of the paranormal and are as hard to pin down fully as any UFO abduction report we read about now days, so I think to start taking a hatchet to things in order to just have the solid facts, would be missing the point.

Mythology on the other hand, seems more well established (eg. recorded in writing) like in the Eddas or the Greek myths, but even they require points of opinion and have conflicting info within them which will never be resolved into the world of hard facts. I think it is better to know the opinions that people hold on opinion based topics, rather than reduce it to OMG ORIGINAL RESEARCH! accusations, because in the end that is all folklore studies can ever really be, opinions of not well documented stories. Anyway thanks for taking notice.

Well, my primary issue is that within your edits opinion is currently being presented as fact, and I'm sure you can understand the issue with that. When we're not directly dealing with the attestations themselves, it's crucial to note who said what and why. Regarding folkloristics as not containing hard science, I don't think you've got the whole picture here; linguistics and comparative approaches are crucial, as well footing in history by any number of means, including "hard sciences". Anyway, I certainly respect the time you've put in and your desire to expand on the article, but the entry remains problematic, and so I will need to rewrite it when I can muster the time. Perhaps the issues with the text will clearer with the rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. What I have written I believe to be basically a researched opinion and could be nothing more than that really. Sorry it looks too fact-like but I find it hard to put in words the inexactness of folklore without watering down my strong opinion of what I think really happened with the Troll folklore (based on what I have read). Anyway I have done as much as I can, so if you can put another slant of reality on it go ahead. So long as it doesn't all vanish again I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Bloodofox/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Heathenism

Hi! Can you take part to this discussion? --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism

Bloodofox, thank you for your action on Germanic Neopaganism.

May I suggest that we take the front of the article from 22 July 2010 (the material up through "Theology and Cosmology") and place it on this article? It would clean out a great deal of the rhetoric and would eliminate many self-published references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_Neopaganism&diff=374920743&oldid=374920711 (Article from 22 July 2010)

Thank you.

--ThorLives (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Troll edits

Hi, nice to see you deleted all my stuff again! Thanks. I have edited my stuff to address your concerns about a synthesis of work. I have included only referenced information on smaller Trolls and Huldrefolk, first from Macculloch's work, then from the Alan Bruford paper. This is now not mashed together to make my points and contains no original research from me. I hope you accept this more than my last effort. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Elf

On the talk page of Elf, you have proposed a rewrite of the article. Further above on the talk page, I had pointed out that the article used to be better, and started to deteriorate after this vandal edit, when the citation to Hall 2004 was lost (as the effect of the vandalism, namely the deletion of the etymology section, was never properly undone) and editors eventually decided that the references to the enigmatic source "Hall 2004" were improper and suspected that Alaric Hall had added them in order to promote his work (which accusation is clearly wrong). I realise that articles should not depend too much on a single source, but there are already many other sources being quoted, and failing to reference Hall 2004 at all, and generally avoiding to include his work, is also nonsensical and a big part of the cause of the deterioration of the article's quality. Such an important source cannot be ignored. Alaric Hall is basically a specialist on the subject of elves in Germanic philology, not only the linguistic side, and his 2004 thesis is full of highly relevant and useful material for the article. It makes no sense to avoid to reference his work even if he had augmented the article with references to it himself. Published, scholarly work is always proper to use, and exactly who inserts it does not matter at all. Experts are encouraged to improve Wikipedia articles by reference to scholarly work published in reliable, peer-reviewed sources, including their own. It is crazy to exclude relevant material on this criterium, and I fail to see how Hall's writings should be irrelevant to the article. It is especially crazy to exclude his publications because they are easy to access on his homepage; we should be glad for this fortunate circumstance, instead of considering it somehow inferior just because of that ease of access. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Are you considering rewriting the article with Hall's work as your backbone? If so, I will duck in and help where I can, and can pass on some advice that I've gleaned from many a Germanic mythology-related rewrite. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy movement polls

With regards to this edit, if you bothered to read the cited article, you would realize that the poll did not come from Bill O'Reilly (he is a "political pundit", not a pollster), rather he cited one of the main results of it. I completely agree with you that anything Bill O'Reilly says could not be considered an impartial judgment on OWS. The only reason I used his secondary source rather than a primary source is that WSJ is notoriously secretive when it comes to their data, and also has a policy of requiring subscriptions to their websites for some articles (a system which I honestly don't comprehend). Fortunately, I managed to dig up the original source from WSJ here, which appears to be open to public.

I'm still wondering why you decided to remove the other two polls despite your apparent lack of objections to them. If you actually object to them, I'll be glad to discuss further here. JimSukwutput 05:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The poll, of course, should be included, but you should better than to attempt to use an O'Reilly anti-Occupy piece as a reference for it, much less quote diatribe from it as simple fact. There is no excuse for that. I will take a look at your re-addition, but as I recall your intended addition depended on further dubious sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Troll edits

My description of the huldrefolk, in the Troll article is clearly referenced, if you want to add information about some of them being beautiful, add your own referenced material. Please stop deleting referenced information. As for the "Eddic Mythology, The Mythology of All Races In Thirteen volumes, Vol. II" PDF file, what is wrong with this? are you accusing it of being fake or something? It is obviously a .PDF of the work in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Huldrefolk are just as difficult a subject to approach as trolls. Do a Google Books search for 'huldre' and 'beautiful' (our current article on the subject is very poor and needs to be rewritten). As for the PDF site offering the PDF, there are numerous more reliable places on the internet where one can find this work, and that's not a reliable website. Issues of advertisement come to mind. Anyone hunting for the work can find it with a simple Google Books search, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The paper I referenced states that Huldrefolk are "are grotesque RATHER THAN BEAUTIFUL, with long noses or cows' tails". I cannot find any reliable source which says the huldrefolk were beautiful. The Huldra herself, whom MacCulloch says "may be regarded as queen of the green-clad Huldre-folk" is a different matter and was indeed seen as beautiful. This clear refutation of Huldrefolk beauty by Alan Bruford, tells me that any claims of Huldrefolk beauty, may be due to ideas of the huldrefolk being confused with the Huldra herself, in unreliable texts. As I said before, my calling huldrefolk "grotesque, with long noses or cows' tails" is clearly referenced. If you want to add a reliable source which refutes mine go ahead, but simply deleting my stuff because you want to isn't sensible.

As for the MacCulloch PDF, I've changed the link to another source, seeing as you're so madly pedantic about such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember when I pointed out the issue with MacCulloch and dwarfs? It's the same situation, Trans. MacCulloch, first of all, writing in 1930, and he's not being as careful as he could be. Secondly, discussion about the Huldrefolk (which simply means "hidden folk") needs to be limited the article about them, including Huldras (i.e. "The hidden"). Huldras, for example, are also frequently attested as having cow tails, yet are frequently cited as beautiful. It should be clear that a poor reference is worse than no reference. I suggest that you step back and take in what is subjective here versus what is objective and keep them clear, just as you went back in and took apart the previously conflated entries. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not MacCulloch saying the huldrefolk are "are grotesque rather than beautiful, with long noses or cows' tails", its from the Alan Bruford paper. MacCulloch doesn't describe their features, but makes a point of the Huldra and Huldrefolk being seperate things, something I have also read in many other articles on the Huldra/ Hulda/ Holda concept, which describe her as related to various Norse goddesses and/ or a seeress.) I admitted your point about dwarfs was accurate upon further reading on the subject, but I can find no reliable evidence that the huldrefolk were seen as beautiful (as was Huldra). The reference I give deliberately says otherwise. I think a description of the huldrefolk is required here, in order to give the reader some idea of what they were described as, other than just hidden entities. I am not going into detail about the huldrefolk on this page, it is only to show their link to the troll concept, how huldrefolk may be the later name for the smaller folkloric beings. You seem to be claiming some higher authority on this subject. You know better than the referenced material? I say prove it with a reference of your own. Thanks very much.Transcendent28 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, noted about the reference. But do you mind if I just use the references you've presented here? Because you might notice that you're contradicting yourself here, Trans. First, you've presented one reference (MacCulloch) proposing that this famously beautiful being (Huldra) is perhaps the queen of a group of beings (the Huldrefolk, which would make her, yes, one of the Huldrefok in question), and yet you've got another reference (Bruford) claiming all of the Huldrefolk are ugly and cow-tailed. So what do you do? Well, the logical thing to do would be to keep the discussion off of the troll article and bring it all over to the Huldrefolk or Huldra article (which we currently have one article for), which is what I'm trying to tell you here. As for the Hel, Huldra, Hölle, etc. thread, that is indeed an interesting subject, but not one to get into on the troll article either. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Huldra being queen of the huldrefolk does not necessarily make her ONE OF the huldrefolk herself. From what I have read, The beautiful Huldra is seen as leading a procession of the dead (which would be the ugly huldrefolk). There are some hints that the Huldrefolk may also be related to the elves of the burial mound (who were possibly seen as fertility/ nature spirits responsible for the reincarnation of the dead). Elves were sometimes seen as beautiful radiant creatures, so this may be a reason for Huldrefolk sometimes looking beautiful. I am however certain that their ugly appearance is mainly due to their origin as spirits of the dead. Huldra, Frau Holda, Hulda or Holle etc. was possibly linked to the goddesses Frigg or Freyja who were somtimes seen as accepting the dead (among other links), and possibly the giantess Hel (queen of the underworld Hel). She also has links to the Norse mythic charactrer Huld, who was a völva (Shamanic witch), who practiced the art of seeing and communicating with the dead. All of this is not for the Troll article, but I'm just saying Huldra is not definitly one of the huldrefolk. My short referenced description of the huldrefolk in this article is backed up by the reference I stated. I only mention the huldrefolk in the context of their relation with small trolls and trows of Orkney, which seems reasonable to me. I can find no hard evidence of huldrefolk being beautiful as was the Huldra, infact on the contrary. I do invite you however to prove me wrong with a substantial reference showing me otherwise, and I will be happy to agree with you.Transcendent28 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Huldra being queen of the huldrefolk does not necessarily make her ONE OF the huldrefolk herself"; see where you wrote 'necessarily'? Indeed, there's an open gap here. When one is potentially queen of a group of people, one is generally considered a part of said people. The issue should be obvious to you. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, my point is that I have evidence to the contrary, of the beautiful Huldra being one of the huldrefolk. My reference rules her out, as they are described as "grotesque rather than beautiful". You have no authority to argue with experts, unless you supply evidence yourself.Transcendent28 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this conversation hasn't ended fruitfully. I will tag the article for neutrality (I argue that the reference is being misapplied) and will start looking into a rewrite of the huldrefolk article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am trying to see your point of view on this, as I did with "dwarfs", but I disagree on the evidence. You have still provided no evidence that my reference is in error, other than a vague assumption that Huldra could be one of the huldrefolk. But anyway, yes the huldrefolk page needs rewriting, I'm not sure I have the time or resources to do it justice however. I do have a very good idea of what it should say though. Good luck.Transcendent28 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Thorpe (1851:3) in his Scandinavian folklore collection that the Huldre is "not everywhere regarded as a solitary wood-nymph: Huldre-men and Huldre-folk are also spoken of, who live together in the mountains, and are almost identical with the subterranean people. In Hardanger the Huldre-people are always clad in green, but their cattle are blue, and may be taken when a grown-up person casts his belt over them. They give abundance of milk. The Huldres take possession of the forsaken pasture-spots in the mountains, and invite people into their mounds, where delightful music is heard." Here Thorpe includes the Huldre/Huldra with the Huldrefolk. I believe this should illustrate what I was saying earlier. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok I accept your evidence. That's all I was asking for really. I think what happened here is that the folklore of the Huldra became tide up with that of the Huldrefolk over time, due to Huldra's links with the dead, as a seeress, goddess etc. from what I have learned the Huldrefolk could (like Huldra) appear beautiful, but that was only an illusion and they were really ugly and grotesque. A fact which was noticed by anyone who married a Huldre. I would find it hard to prove this 100% but it would be nice to have some description of the huldrefolk here as being *sometimes* beautiful or ugly. I believe their ugly nature was very much linked to their origin as dead spirits in their burial mounds. Their beautiful nature was either drawn from Huldra herself or from the beauty of the elves who also dwelt in the burial mound. Elves I believe from a lot of study, were involved in the regeneration of life, be it plants, crops, animals, or humans eg. reincarnation. This co-dwelling in the burial mound linked these elves with the dead, and they were known as trolls or trolds (along with all supernatural creatures and witches) and later the Huldrefolk, or Huldufolk in Iceland.

AGF

And don't be a dick. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cute, "Factchecker". But don't worry, no Communists here! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, be a dick all you want. I can't stop you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, so far you've referred to me as "a huge asshole" and "a dick". Where else are we going to go with this? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I opened a request at WQA seeking assistance in getting you to stop making personal attacks at OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism

Just an alert that discord continues at Germanic Neopaganism.

--ThorLives (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Schoen's bio says he is a "contributor" to Fox news, the WaPo, and the WSJ, has advised Mike Bloomberg and Bill Clinton, and has lectured at Harvard, Columbia, and Penn. You are cherry-picking the "Fox" affiliation and seem to be presenting it in a false light, insofar as it appears he is just as much a "WaPo political analyst" and a "WSJ political analyst" as he is a "Fox news analyst" -- to say nothing of the fact that none of these is his principal occupation, which in fact a pollster, i.e. a founding partner and chief analyst at a prominent polling firm. You keep trying to justify that only the Fox label is appropriate, insisting that this is his "current occupation", contrary to fact.

Really it is clear you are trying to push POV by including this (again, cherry-picked) description in order to imply that he is just another uncredentialed, right-wing partisan talking head like Glenn Beck, which he's not—Harvard magna cum laude, Harvard Law, doctor of philosophy from Oxford, lecturer at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. If you are going to insist that "Fox" appears in that sentence just because you and some blogger think that he needs to be smeared in this fashion, I'll insist we give a more thorough reading of his CV in order to prevent the highly imbalanced, partisan-POV-pushing impression you are trying to make it have.

I find it especially amusing that even the sources you cite have nothing of substance to say except to call him a liar, but say nothing to back that up, and imply he shills for Fox. Nothing but vacuous ad hominem attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

He's both a pollster and a Fox News employee; yeah, he "shills" for Fox. Firemen work for fire departments. It's not "POV-pushing" to assert that that's his job. What's POV-pushing is when you reach a decade behind to cherry pick his employment under the Clinton administration. Stick to his current employment and spare me the smokescreen. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that, after responding here, I realized that the above user also posted the same material to the talk page here, curiously enough. I subsequently copied and pasted my response here with additional material in response. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So I take it you have no objection to mentioning the other news outlets he works for? Or do you admit that you only want to mention Fox, and only Fox, because you want to paint Schoen in a particular light? That's called POV-pushing, friend. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Stick to the article talk page rather than spamming my talk page with the same material, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued PAs, please stop

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cute. Got a template to post on your wall every time you call me a "dick" or an "asshole"? I believe those would actually qualify as personal attacks, after all. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You've now repeated those words about 20 times more often than I said them, which was once each. And it's utterly hilarious that you pretend (or perhaps even believe, contrary to reason!) that you haven't been dumping tar and feathers on me in virtually every comment you've ever directed to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that those are actual person attacks from you, whereas pointing out your ideological editing is not. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What an absurd comment. You are a more "ideological" editor than me, whatever that is supposed to mean. That doesn't mean you can go on for pages and pages on Talk and in edit summaries, This needs to be removed because "Factchecker" is ideological! O NOES! Here's a test for you: go around saying that to everyone you disagree with on a political issue, and even when they argue about policy civilly, just keep attacking their character—and see what they call you in response when you won't stop insulting them as a substitute for argument. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, you've done nothing but reconfirm your pro-Fox News stance over and over here while now and then referring to me with with grade-school insults. At no point have you responded to accusations of your intense bias other than claim that they are "personal attacks", even when they've been rejected during your attempts to pull me into arbitration (and reopen these cases without notifying me, no less). I've argued policy every step of the way, where you've done nothing but attempt to lawyer and weasel around the obvious while making excuses for referring to me as a "dick" and an "asshole". :bloodofox: (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Referred to you "now and then" with grade-school insults? That's a flat-out lie. I called you two names in two edits about ten minutes apart. Period. That's it. Yet for days you have been trying to trump it up into something much more than that. And there is no need for me to respond to personal attacks. If I sat there and said over and over and over and over and over again that you're an intensely biased ideologue who has dishonest motives, and refused to even discuss a content dispute without constantly mentioning that you're an ideologue with dishonest motives, how would you respond? The appropriate response would be to ignore the pointless and irrelevant ad hominem attacks. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your comment, other than to say you started off by making personal attacks, and continue to make personal attacks, and only occasionally do you bother to make badly incorrect policy arguments in an attempt to justify your edit-warring and personal attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Folks, the "my wife made me beat her" syndrome in action. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This is silly. Bloodfox - while the PoV of other contributors here is most of the time blatantly and totally obvious, and their willingness to ignore anything in pursuit of DESPERATELY making our article reflect what they hope the world is like is utterly transparent, it's considered against the rules of the game to mention this. So don't. Centrify, or whatever your name is now - don't call other contributors vulgar names. While most of the rules of the game require that you break them over and over, the rule against calling other people names is the only one that's actually enforced. You could consider apologizing. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not until Blood both (1) stops slandering me, and (2) apologizes for slandering me. I'm in the right here. Hipocrite, it would also be really polite of you to redact the comments about the "blatant and totally obvious" POV of "other contributors here", which looks it was ever-so-subtly directed at me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So you will continue to call Bloodfox vulgar names until he apologizes for "slandering" you? Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? I called him one vulgar name in one edit many days ago, and referred him to WP:DICK in another edit on the same day. Those two edits were probably about 10 minutes apart. At no other time have I called him any name. Perhaps the fact that he has repeated those words 20 or 30 times since that day is giving you the misleading impression that I called him those names at any other time. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My only command to you was that you not call him vulgar names. I said you could consider apologizing. Your response to this was "no, until blah blah blah" signifing that you did not agree to not call him vulgar names unless you got some benefit. Then you talked about how I persecuted you by commenting about blatent and obvious PoV's of some contributors here, but I ignored that bit. Will you commit to not call other users vulgar names? Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How does refusing to apologize for a one-time outburst mean that I insist on continuing to call him names? That doesn't even make sense. No, I'm not going to call "other users" vulgar names, nor is that something that I generally do. But I'm also not going to apologize, because I gave the guy plenty of chances to stop before I complained, and before I said a single unkind word in response, and even now he insists on continuing to make insulting comments. It's a one-sided campaign of ongoing personal attacks that he has no business carrying out on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The giants

I think we're in a cleft stick on this one. Unless you know of scholarship that offers a new analysis of the etins - all I know of that is a reliable source is Lotte Motz's theory deriving the trolls from the deities of the Megalithic indigenous peoples, and my impression is that that has been largely ignored. In any case it doesn't help with distinguishing the giant figures. - Basically the sources are a mess; the neat schema quoted in Cleasby-Vigfusson doesn't reflect the reality in the texts; the fact that the Æsir are ethnically at least 3/4 jǫtunn is a big elephant in the room; and any argument that the modern troll belief is the product of demonization of the gods themselves by Xians is undermined by the occurrence of plenty of references to trolls (with a whole vocabulary of their own) in texts that quite clearly distinguish them from the gods (e.g. in the Grímnismál prose, the brother who was Frigg's fosterling is getting children on trollwives). The situation is not made any clearer by the confusion over elves, dark elves, and dwarves - and Alvíss turns to stone exactly like a troll. And I think we are stuck with respect to English, too. We have two and one half words: giant, ogre, and the archaic/heathen etin. (I truly hope the ghastly rokkur construct appears nowhere in article space.) I believe that's just the situation - unless, as I say, some scholar has said useful things. It would not of course have to be English-language scholarship, but it would have to rise above the level of "archetypes of chaos" and "cognates of the Titans" in order to be of use in explaining why there are so many words in Old Norse, and varying roles . . . and it would still not solve the problem of the paucity of words in English.

I believe the main problem with those articles, as with so many in the field on en.wikipedia, is that they're still mostly based on the Nordisk Familjebok. They need more scholarly references, including those that actually discuss the texts. They can and should point out that the Norse giants are not always characterized as huge - although they are in the Skrymir story. (And it's not just a Scandinavian issue. The A-S cliché of enta geweorc for Roman ruins seems to imply size, but Mercurius se gigand as a description of Woden can be read as ancientness and/or ancestry. I wonder in fact whether the Anglo-Saxons thouhgt of the titans as huge or just as obsolete?) But we can't impose orderliness that's there neither in the sources, nor in the scholarship, nor in the English language.

Speaking of which I still owe you a brilliant summation of the etymology of Óðinn. Problem is of course the -inn . . .

Yngvadottir (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note suggesting you look at Bárðar saga Snæfellsáss (I have added refs to the translation to be found in that 5-volume set of Sagas of Icelanders and to Guðbrandur Vigfússon's edition, most of which is visible on GoogleBooks, and for the parts that preview may blank out, there's a modernized text linked at the bottom. The saga includes interesting details that I should track down the references to in scholarship, but I noticed it also uses almost the full range of words for giants and other wights, and other than some equation of þurs and troll, seems to keep them distinct. Worth having a look at as a document, I think, and you may even find someone has discussed it in that light. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the recommendations, Yngvadottir! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pennnick and Jones

You're right, very sorry about that. The name Nigel Pennick must be similar to someone else I've read who is reliable. However, the idea of a two month "Yule Tide" seems to have had some credence a hundred years ago, has it been abandoned? I'm also not sure about the word 'attested' as it seems to give credence to statements which may not be authoritative. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem—It's unfortunate and I wish it were a better source as there's nothing out there in the English language that really fills that vacuum otherwise. As for Yule Tide, while I haven't looked into it, the phrase itself fits well with the span of time that the month names point to. The general idea seems to be that there was a period of time between late November and January that was "Yule time", and then a specific date in which the event itself was held, presumably Midwinter. Regarding attestation, this is standard for the field, and simply just means "the primary sources/corpus say(s)...". :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough - by 'it seems' I meant 'the average reader might see it as giving credence'. I didn't see it as giving credence. It looks as though neither of us really like the lead, which starts "Yule or Yuletide ("Yule-time") is a winter event". Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted it a bit. Do you propose we change it to anything in particular? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mōdraniht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and a few words

I really appreciate the amount of effort you have put into the Germanic paganism articles and I usually find myself agreeing with your stances. I respect the quality of your editing a geat deal. A few points I hope you can take as friendly and constructive:

• When you changed the Sigiwif article to a redirect you removed material such as the original text and opinions from different sources. There is also material relating to a very similar OHG charm that is mentioned on the German language page (which I added the ref to on the bee swarm page). This article deserves a little more attention and the device I edit with makes it excruciatingly painful and time consuming to restore or copy material.
• The Idis-dis distinction is absurd and I think needs the most thorough possible treatment. Again my browser makes doing quality work on this difficult and you are well able to.
• We have still not cleaned up all the Freya-Frigg dispute issues (which also seem borderline absurd and POV-prone to me). I hope that dealing with dbachmann and others doesn't put you off the finalisation of that work.
• I think at times you are overly aggressive, inconsiderate, and feel a sense of ownership over the topics. It is not necessarily misplaced (you are our best editor on it) and I am prone to similar personality traits. If it is worth applying a bit of diplomacy then I would think it helpful and constructive.

Thanks again and best wishes. Obotlig (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Obotlig. I appreciate the feedback and the kind words. Responses to your comments:

• I intended to import over the Grimm and Kemble references to our For a Swarm of Bees article (which the former sigewif article did not link to). The main issue is that we already had an article about it, and the former sigewif article presented the figures as particular beings in their own right, which seems to be about universally agreed.
• Right now our dís article is a total mess. Seeing it rewritten to good article criteria is my priority in that area before going any further in that realm, but I have a mountain of other things I'm working on at the moment (including several very bad cosmology-related articles concurrent with a rewrite for the just-as-bad Norse mythology article). In my opinion it should remain separate from the dísir article (see talk page at Idis (Germanic) for a little scholarship noting some issues in equation), although the matter gone in more depth.
• I agree about the Frijjō article. It's currently about as bad as it gets and is essentially a confused mess (as I believe I outline pretty clearly on the talk page). In time I'll return to the issue of a Frigg-Freyja hypothesis article, which is logically exactly the sort of article we'd need handling the matter. However, it would be wise to get Frigg written to good article standards first.
• I apologize for coming off as displaying a sense of ownership of any articles. When I rewrite articles, I try to build them on strong enough foundations so that they will last, and structure them so that they may be added to by other editors. For example, new, superior translations can easily be swapped out for old (I'm still waiting for that mass market Dronke edition of the Poetic Edda). As you know, in the workshop it can frequently get messy, particularly when dealing with a lot at once, or editors who have been around a long time and knowingly attempt to push agenda or ideology. Of course, talking it out is the key, and I am always willing to discuss.

As a side note, my general goal here is to get all of these articles rewritten on a solid, academically-based bedrock, so that in the future other editors can both easily gain the information they're looking for and others may add more with ease. As of now I rewritten many articles and less and less remain. When these are all solid, I intend to move into some other, related mythological branches, and update these periodically. You are welcome to help. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great and much appreciated. One thing I have run into is that the quality of the scholarship varies in reliable sources and that some of our best experts still tend to rely on Grimm and Kemble etc. who were not always right. Others make what seem to me rather conjectural linguistic arguments. I am studying proto-Germanic myself (independently from what few recent and reliable academic texts we have) and I have conerns about more credit being given to one version of conjecture over another. Looking at the details of how even the latest linguistc reconstructions are done, the potential for bias among the scholars is extremely high and the hard empircal evidence is thin. Also, so many of the related pages (history culture etc) have uncited or synthesized material.

If I can find time this comng year I would like to dedicate a few months to putting together encyclopedic articles, acquiring and verifying sources and ensuring consistency betwen articles (when I first visited the Angeln article it was embarassingly synthetic and uncited) and trying to make sure at least the German language wikis are correctly linked and fundamentally match in content.

On For a Swarm of Bees I am going to restore the OE text of that portion, the citations for association with valkyries, and Grimm's note on sigewif in other languages (which I am not sure of the veracity of but he is still a RS). Also I will add the very significant material on the German wikipedia associating it with a remarkably similar but distinct German one. I'll do this in steps because as I mentioned my browser and editing device is rather inconvenient but I would like to see this article left in decent shape for now.

Also, for the love of Odin please consider archiving or autoarchiving your talk age. :-) Thanks again fo your excellent work. Obotlig (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Obotlig. The history and culture articles are indeed pretty bad at the moment. I am preparing a long over due Norse mythology rewrite as time allows, but before I can do that I need to sort out some articles like Ymir (which I am in the process of rewriting). When I rewrite articles, I set out to identify the major modern strains of scholarship, approach them as objectively as possible, and then add whatever else of note I might find. I've thought about making a guide to rewriting articles mythical figures, but my time here is, at the moment, better spent rewriting articles. And you're right, I do need to archive my talk page! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Careless undo/deletion

Again, with the highest respect to you, that undo on For a Swarm of Bees was careless for several reasons:

1. You deleted text I had added and changes I had made other than the (improperly implemented) reference you wanted to preserve.
2. If you prefer a certain format for the references let's discuss it. In any case the Cite template had not been used and should be. The "notes" were in atypical format. We can look at or discuss some available style guides. I would like to add some notes actually. (versus references)
3. I had informed you I would be editing in mutiple steps due to my browser limitations and to step in during the midst of it with a wholesale undo caused me some considerable difficulty. Please at least allow me to finish the series of edits I am making or preserve material that I would have to manually restore.
4. As I think I mentioned I have no working copy and paste. As you can imagine this can be very frustrating. Excruciating. I cannot easily restore mateial that gets deleted, or re-arrange existing material. It is all done very slowly and manually.

Please work with me on this. If you wish to reformat the references let us discuss the proper style and if anything needs to be moved, you can do the copy and paste. Please help preserve what I enter or I will have to restore it manually. Even an edit conflict is a catastrophe for me. Thank you for your patience and consideration. Obotlig (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Obotlig. If there's a style guide on the page and the page isn't in need of a rewrite, it's generally considered rude to ignore the referencing system in place. I will keep in mind the trouble you are having in future edits, and I apologize for any frustration you're experiencing—sounds painful with the device, yes. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep in mind preserving existing styles (of all sorts) in articles. I realized my error pretty quickly when I saw the need to add notes on different topics from the same source, and personally would like to see the style on that page applied to other related articles - if I had the tools I would bring this to the attention of the relevant wikiprojects and do the manual work of making this more uniform myself if the consensus were for that change. You mention a uniform style guide for all mythological figures and I think this would be a very good idea. Standardized major sections, order of treatment, reference format, image type and placement, appropriate wording, categories, templates, etc. - I would be very happy to see that. Good luck on Norse Mythology. Obotlig (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ymir, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gangleri and Rime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Zeus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proto-Indo-European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Frigg/Freya tags!

Sorry - didn't mean to "revert your reversion" like that - you jumped in so quick I thought I had inadvently not registered my edit.

I HAVE read the talk page - and the article, which was extensively modified to make it more neutral during the dispute, which has been "dead" now for over two years.

Plese don't reinsert the tags unless you have issues with the article as it exists (as opposed to the 2009 version), and are prepared to argue the case for further changes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the talk page. Not only is the article title /itself/ still nonsense (it should simply be something like "Freyja-Frigg hypothesis"), but the text of the article is still jumbled, non-neutral confusion. The tags must remain until the rewrite comes. I make it quite explicit what the numerous problems are on the talk page; read it. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I HAVE read it actually - an apology for calling me a liar so directly might settle the dust before we go into this. I VERY much doubt that your re-reading of the talk page, and the article itself (which I will assume) was followed by much thought or consideration. Tags generally are a bad thing unless they lead to improvement of articles tagged - they put users off, for one thing. These tags have both been there for a good while now - the discussion has been dead all this time - and the article is plainly not the same article which caused the dispute in the first place. Do you want to move and/or rewrite the article yourself? Or would you outline changes that would improve it from your point of view.

My direct interest in Germanic mythology is minimal - to be honest - I came to this from Friday, where its relevance is to explaining why Frigg and Freya both seem to be involved in the name for Friday in different northern languages. I would obviously prefer that we can resolve this dispute (assuming you would persist in the idea that it was not solved in 2009) rather than reinsert these tags onto an article that does not really seem (to me) to deserve them.

As a starting point - do you think the basic point of the article, which is that at least in some national mythologies Frigg and Frija seem to be confused, and may well have a common origin, is a valid one? I tend to take your point about the article's title - how far would that go to making you happy about this one. And finally - hadn't we better move this one to the talk page of the article? I started here because I thought you might have thought me rude for reverting you so quickly - as I explained, this was inadvertent. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I've moved the article - and tweaked it a bit. Have you any constructive criticisms and changes you'd like made? I've no interest in taking sides in old animousities, here or anywhere else: but I patently don't have the background to do justice to any negative side to this debate. Incidentally, I've also copied this discussion to the talk page for the article. (Taking your talk page off my watchlist - and won't be responding to anything further here). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tags

I'm not disputing these but you need to start a section on each article's talk page with a suitable heading and give some specifics. If you don't, any editor is within their rights to remove it. I look forward to your comments. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there some policy about this somewhere? I think I made my reasoning pretty clear in my edit summaries, did I not? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just that I've seen people remove tags for that reason. I've done it myself as sometimes these tags are misused by pov editors. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But surely you see why I placed them? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep and I agree. But I did see at least one tag removed this weekend 'no discussion on talk page'. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On one of the articles I tagged or elsewhere? They should be reverted; rationale was provided and talk page discussion is not required for tags. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, elsewhere. As I said, I'm not really disputing you, just commenting on what I've seen elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Trolls.....

Greetings Bloodofox, just wanted to stop in and say thanks for all the hard work you're doing to make sure the Troll article is as accurate as it can be. I can tell that you have a passion for both wikipedia and Norse mythology.

I was wondering though, is there anyway that we can work together to help bring people up to speed on the issues of Trolls in terms of the RfC responders? Your recent comments make it appear that you're tired of having to answer the same questions again and again, which I can relate to. And I understand that you have better things to do with your time then to spend all day explaining things to everyone, though IMHO, it's just not going to help anything to bite the people who come in to respond to the RfC, or just to help in general. They are coming in under good faith, trying to help, however misguided that help may be.

IMHO, we could gain more protectors and contributors to the article and any future content issues, by welcoming them and helping to bring them up to speed on the current issues. At the moment, I haven't found any qualifications to answering RfC's, and officially, wikipedia doesn't require anyone to know the rules to edit. So there are probably going to be more people coming in with similar suggestions, who have little or no knowledge of Norse mythology or the origins of Trolls. I know it's tiring, but it's also not going to be the end of the world if we take the time to educate new editors in a tactful manner. In any case, you've been around wikipedia a lot longer than I have, and I'm sure your patience is beyond tried. I'm just trying to help you avoid a wikiquette dispute or anything beyond that. It wouldn't help the Troll article to loose you. --Bema Self (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bema, thank you for the note and your nice words. I'm generally a patient and happy-to-help editor, but when users flatly don't read the material they should, I think one can only be blunt about that. If someone loses face over this, there's a lesson to be learned by that individual. You seem to be putting in time to understand the subject matter and the article, and I appreciate that. It will certainly benefit you and the rest of us. I should point out that the current troll article is not as thoroughly developed as it could be, as you may notice. This is mainly due to lack of time on my part lately, although I've recently expanded it with another editor. In the past, I've gotten some Norse mythology articles that I've (re)written to Good Article status, which you can see on my user page. Of these, eentually the troll article will be along the lines of, say, the valkyrie article or our article for Skaði. If you are interested in expanding the troll article, these may be useful models for you to take a look at if you have not already. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ethereal being

A user on the ethereal being article keeps reverting deleted bogus original research claiming that it is genuine, I have checked these sources and they do not mention anything to do with ethereal beings. I can see that this issue is going to be dragged on along time as this specific user has expressed they do not want to article changed at all or merged. I think someone should mention it at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard usually some of the members there will sort out an issue like this faster than other users can. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting development. Well, unfortunately for said user, they'll only be removed in time; the article itself is built on a foundation of severe violations of policy, as has been well pointed out at this point by several users, including myself. This issue need not drag on. In truth, I think the violations are so severe that the matter could be over relatively quickly. The more involved the quicker the issue will flame out. Don't get discouraged—if I weren't so busy at the moment I would help out more. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aztlshamb "so I wonder we can regard it as a featured article" (Acct created October 2011)

• Melodychick "As long the current text keeps safe in some place of the article" (Acct created Jan 2011)

• BluishPixie "Once inside, the person face the infinite what customarily is too much to human mind" (Acct created Oct. 2011)

• Guslarkachic "such thing to me is irrelevant" (Acct created Sept. 2011)

• Excalibursword "I believe Guslarkachic made it clear the misconception here." (Acct created Nov. 2011)

• Hour of Angels "May I ask you some assistance?"…"I am not a native speaker of English language and perhaps (likely) I made some mistakes when editing it" (Acct created Jan 2011)

I noticed all the above accounts make the exact same kind of "fractured English" mistakes on occasion. All the accounts were created in 2011, they all work on the same articles, and they all have a habit of marking a majority of their edits as "minor". Maybe I'm imagining things? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Hour of Angels - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'll be paying attention to the outcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the checkuser added a couple more usernames to the list, "Dream of Nyx" and "Academictask", whose edit history includes behavior exactly similar to the ones at Ethereal being. According to checkuser, the IP's don't match precisely but the users are all geographically close to one another. My guess is that it could be some kind of meatpuppetry situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Very curious. Well, the redirect seems to be imminent regardless. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody vandalised your user page

I take it that this is irony, or vandalism,

I rigidly support Ƿikipedia's policies on basic civility, mandatory sourcing, neutral wording and oppose any attempt at censorship, no matter who does it or what reason they give.

since clearly you respect none of these. You regularly edit-war to restore non-neutral wording, you restore completely unsourced, and false, claims, and you try to tear down articles on no other grounds that you do not like them. And let's charitably not go into "civility". Perhaps you should revise your user page to reflect your actual approach to getting your way here. --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How often does this tactic work for you? No, I don't mean pointlessly posting spiteful, immature stuff like the header message above to my talk page, but rather accusing someone of something that you've been repeatedly admonished for. It's no secret that your edit history is littered with example after example of ignoring basic sourcing requirements, stating theory as fact, etc—essentially all you claim about me above without any basis. As a recent example, anyone can see your work at your preferred version of Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis.

I imagine the net results of such a tactic would be negative for you. Not everyone is going to just "take your word for it"—they might actually do some digging around. As for me,anyone can, for example, simply look at any of the GA articles I've produced (almost 50 now), any of the numerous articles I've rewritten to GA standards, or take a glance at my edit history at any given time. Think about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Urglaawe

Hail. I see that the Urglaawe page has been redirected to Germanic Neopaganism page. However, significant information from the original page was not carried over. Can the old text at least be recovered and flexed into the Germanic Neopaganism page? Urglaawe is only partially reconstructionist. While some of the traditions are Neopagan, a great many are living in the folk culture and in the Elder practice of Braucherei, so the sole placement in English Wikipedia under Neopaganism distorts the picture a bit. Please advise! Verzannt 15:44, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Hello Verzannt. I believe this group may fail Wikipedia's policies on notability (Wikipedia:Notability)). Please also see Wikipedia:Sourcing#Reliable_sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic mysticism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

If you have the time, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this article: Morya (Theosophy), I consider it one of the worst articles on wikipedia, I believe articles should be improved but this article is not worth working on. It is filled with original research from top to bottom, no third party reliable references at all, nothing. Last month or so I submitted it to be deleted, but at the last minute a Theosophist entered the debate and it was two votes to one, so I lost out. This user agreed he would try and help the article but as predicted he has since not logged in. The article is mostly copy and paste from two Theosophist books not notable at all, absolute wild claims and crank talk, it is hard to even understand what the article is saying, you would have to be an experienced Theosophist to understand it all. Most of the articles content is already found on the Ascended Master article, so I do not see why we need the article at all, as it is mostly original research and fringe pushing from the Theosophist crowd and copied material. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Green, my apologies for my late response. I am afraid that I haven't had time to look too deeply into this as it is not a subject that I am particularly familiar with nor working with. Generally I've only been on editing articles that have been relating to subjects that I've been dealing with at the time outside of Wikipedia. I am afraid that I cannot be of much help here at this time. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Brothers Grimm

Hi - could you please take your issues to the talk page instead of the long edit summaries that quite frankly are not very encouraging. I've spent quite a bit of time reworking the page for the Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries, have only finished reading the sources and haven't really had the time to go through the page to decide what to keep or what to dump. If you intend to eviserate the page that's fine, but please let me know on my talk so I can stop doing what I've been doing for the past week and not put it forward as an improvement. Furthermore, this is what the lead looked like yesterday. I didn't just "drop" in Perrault - it's been there for who knows how long! Thanks.Truthkeeper (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. My edit summaries are necessarily concise due to space and I don't mean to be discouraging—I had no idea you were working on a revamp and none of the edits specifically refer to you. The article is not in a bad state, there are just some issues involving consistency and specifications that I felt needed some touching on. For example, there's the ongoing issue of the use of the problematic term "fairy tale" versus märchen in English, as well as the usually semantic issue of "Germanic". Most of my changes are pretty minor and, presumably, uncontroversial, but if there's something in particular that you'd like to discuss I'm open to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to believe the article is in a better state than it was when I began the revamp [7]. At any rate, as I said, only tonight finished with the sources and haven't gone through for consistency, but I also would like to stick with the terminology and nomenclature the sources use, fwiw. The point of this is to provide better sourcing to a page that not only lacked sourcing, consistency, but also had entire paragraphs that were copied directly from sources. And yes, I do find the edit summaries to be judgmental. This is the en.wp and I don't think märchen is correct - but my thoughts aside, both Tatar and Zipes, the preeminent scholars in the field, use the word fairy tale. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some commentary from Ralph Manheim (from his 1977 translator's preface of his translation, which he has titled Grimms' Tales for Young and Old, still generally considered the standard English translation):

Why, in English, were they called fairy tales in the first place? For, despite the considerable population of devils, witches, goblins, and elves, there are, strictly speaking, no fairies in these stories, but only "wise women", good or bad, of indeterminate age, not remarkable for their looks, and rarely equipped with wands, while the German word Märchen means only a fantastic tale and is translated in virtually every other language by any equivalent of "tale" or "story".

The reason is that when the tales first arrived in England, such "absurdities" were thought to be fit only for children, who were distinctly second class citizens at the time. The adults of the reading classes were much too busy making money, Empire-building, and finding scientific explanations for the sun and everything under it, to bother with village idiots who get to be kings, tables that set themselves, or stupid peasant women with identity crises. And since they ales were addressed to children, they were termed fairy tales and, by and large, gift-wrapped in a fairy-tale style that was supposed to appeal to children." (Mannheim 1983:1-2).

Mannheim is not the only scholar to hold this opinion, and his points need to be considered; märchen is in fact technically more correct. As for terms like teutonic, they need to be avoided out of direct quote, and the article needs to be sensible and consistent—something I've attempted to do with my recent edits. I suggest that you don't take my concise edit summaries personally, as they weren't directed to you or anything else in particularly, just a response to what I'm seeing in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you but I would suggest that this kind of in-depth analysis is better reserved for the KHM page, which needs a large expansion. The Brothers Grimm page by necessity is a summary page because of all the daughter articles, and frankly I think I may have added too much as it is. I'd prefer to refer to the stories as tales myself. Anyway, yes, I took the edit summaries personally as I've put a lot of work into the page recently. I apologize. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement here and I will be glad to help as time permits me. I apologize for my unintended offense; I tend to be very straightforward on Wikipedia, and I fear that I may come off as colder than I actually am at times. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yours edits to Rod of Asceplius

Your attitude at Rod of Asclepius has been incredibly poor, and an example of the worst type of destructive editing. Coming in to a stable article and removing a section is generally considered poor form, when you had a lot of better options like posting a talk page query, placing cite tags on the section, flagging the article, going to the wikiproject which claims it, or even better, you could have done a 1 minute google search and added a citation yourself.

Futhermore, quoting slightly obscure wiki guide pages isn't exactly endearing. If this is your style, might I suggest WP:BRD in relation to the initial double reversion, WP:GOODFAITH in relation to the second time after I said i'd add a reference, and just maybe, if none of those appeal, then WP:DONTBEADICK

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT is not a "slightly obscure wiki guide page"; this is a core Wikipedia policy. Further, there's no such thing as a "stable article" on Wikipedia. I suggest you quit wasting your time and mine and find a reference backing the information you want in the article or drop it until you do. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Six references not enough? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Doing a Google search and slapping together six references you found from random EMS and personal sites to make a point isn't doing you any favors. Please review WP:REF. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Having been left with little choice due to your unececessary and unhelpful removals, that was what i could muster in the time available. Of course the American and British Medical Associations would generally count as credible sourcing, and both link the biblical origin to the classical. It is you that is out of line with constructive editing practice. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Or you could have simply referenced your insisted content. As a whole, further investigation makes it clear that the article has serious issues. It could well do with a rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not the way you do it! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The way I do it? See Wikipedia:Good article criteria. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are not in dispute. But your slash and burn approach is unhelpful. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's entirely helpful—what's unhelpful is having tons of information around with either some random Google reference attached or no reference whatsoever. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)

At least Davemon is no longer in his tabloid gossip phase[8] -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is true. I have had to deal with a lot of nonsense and pointless time wasting from this guy. For example, see the talk pages and article edit histories at Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar and Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr. Then there are gems like "You haven't provided a citation that Rudolf Simek frames (Tolkiens) employment of the word and concept in a historical context. Ruldolf wasn't even born until 1954, so how on earth did his potted history come to inform Tolkiens views?" ([9]). Yeah. Generally I get the impression that the guy can't be bothered to do his research. Then, when he's called out on it, rather than just admitting he made a mistake, he gets aggressive and often goes to great lengths to save face, frequently resorting to wave after wave of shifting positions to save face. I wish this wasn't the case. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ragnarök

Hi

Just wondering why you changed ǫ and ø into ö in the article on Ragnarǫk. These letters were separate letters in Old Norse and when they later merged to ö it happened in Icelandic only. Mainland Scandinavian is still using different characters for these sounds (ø is kept (as ö in Swedish), ǫ became o).

I understand that some very old computers are unable to show the ǫ character, but I do not think the ö is a very good solution. My web browser treats it as a variant of ø, so when I search for vǫlva or volva, I won’t get any matches. However, both völva and vølva will give me plenty of matches. This causes issues for me, who actually have a computer that follows the standards, just to be nice those who have a computer that does not. Earlier, I didn’t have OGG playback support on my computer, but that was my problem – I wasn’t replacing every OGG I found on Wikipedia with AVI's or MPEG's. In addition to this, people may read the letter ö as an ø-sound instead of the ɔ-sound, which is completely wrong. If ǫ can’t be used, why not use ò (or CSS/HTML4 underlined o) instead then? This is a character that is unused in both Old Norse and Icelandic. Searching for ǫ will match ò in Safari and the pronunciation is closer to the original ǫ.

According to the article on Web typography, some older browsers like IE4 are able to download missing fonts. So why not use this technology and avoid all these replacement characters? Or even better, why not use a template like Template:SpecialChars?

There are plenty of other solutions, so again: why choose the one that results in both incorrect spelling and ambiguation (ǫ/ø > ö)? 85.166.241.212 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking the time to get in contact with me here. My use of the o-umlaut and not the o-ogonek is due to Wikipedia naming conventions. Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Norse_mythology) for the naming conventions we're employing on Old Norse-related articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see … But still, røkkr and rǫk had different vowels. If ö is used in both cases, then most readers are unable to know what the original vowels were. 85.166.241.212 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is primarily just the o-ogonek. Ø is, of course, fully supported, so there's no problem with its employment where appropriate.. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, then things are not as bad as I thought. I assume I can re-introduce the difference between ö (insted of ǫ) and ø in Ragnarǫk’s article then? It was lost when ǫ became ö. 85.166.241.212 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Easter

Bloodofox, your posts here and at the talk page have the effect of being disruptive, especially this close to Easter day itself. I don't think it's right to characterise the article as having undue POV issues, certainly not to the point of slapping a tag on it. Worst of all (from my point of view) it brings a combative, tendentious editing style and makes pagans/neopagans look, frankly, a bit daft. Please leave the article alone until after Easter, and then return and edit/discuss more carefully and calmly. I'll regard further edits from you over the next 36 hours in the same vein as disruption. Sorry to be so blunt. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I at least appreciated the more ironical comments - too bad that humour even of the more acerbic style is not universal  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

THank you, Velella. Kim, your threats have been ignored—I've brought numerous points to the table, including that the article totally ignores the major secular aspects of the holiday. The tag must remain until it's sorted out. The only embarrassment here is how the article negates anything but Christianity. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please self-revert the POV tag or you will be blocked for disruptived editing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, are you seriously threatening to block me for restoring an NPOV tag when an NPOV dispute is clearly waging and where several editors have stated agreement with me? I assure you that I will pursue it to the fullest extent. You are making a major mistake here. I suggest that you apologize and drop the subject. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Kim, you have now blocked me because you don't want the "NPOV" tag on the Easter article on Easter Sunday. This is regardless of there being a major series of neutrality discussions on the talk page, with your stated purpose being that you don't want the tag to be there on Easter Sunday. This is the most ridiculous admin action I've ever seen. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I've blocked you until Easter is over. My view is that you have manufactured an NPOV dispute and done so at a particularly inappropriate time. One person making arguments with very WP:UNDUE weight does not make a POV dispute. If it did, then a rabid Christian editor could come to the Beltane article, make a spurious argument about how May 1st is really some saint's day or other, then slap a POV tag on the article when he got sent away with a flea in his ear. I don't think it's unreasonable for the article on the major Christian festival to major on Christian themes. The pagan etymology for the word is already well-attested in the article and does not need further promoting. Why you chose right now to start this discussion I don't know, but I assume the date is no coincidence. Slapping an unwarranted POV tag on the article the day before Easter day strikes me as quite unnecessary, and this is the disruption for which I have blocked you. The two of us have collaborated on a number of articles with pagan themes before now and I hope we do again; this adventure of yours can only give pagan editors here at WP a bad name and makes it less likely that our articles will be taken seriously by other editors. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bloodofox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Greetings, uninvolved administrators. For the first time during my several years of editing Wikipedia, I have found myself blocked. Specifically until Easter Sunday is over. Why? The reason given was "disruption". What does this translate to in my case? Re-adding the {{npov}} tag to the Easter article when a discussion about neutrality (mainly about the article essentially ignoring the secular) is currently being waged by several users on the Easter talk page, including myself. See, for example, the "Well, why not debate what Easter is Easter?" thread.

It's all very simple, really. User Kim Dent-Brown responded to a post by user howcheng complaining about the NPOV tag being on the article as an "huge embarrassment", as it would be there on Easter Sunday. Kim agreed that we couldn't have that (it being Easter Sunday tomorrow and all), and so the tag must be removed (despite the big NPOV dispute going on at the talk page). He is now insinuating that I have "manufactured" this argument (??), despite the talk pages making it highly clear that it was going on well before I came along, with various charges of bias being made by users all over it. Indeed, the article almost entirely ignores the secular. Kim also talks a lot about the "pagan" aspects of the discussion, a minor issue in the face of the secular issue, but one that comes up a lot due to apparent confusion on the part of some editors about the historic chronology of the use of the name Easter (and its Old English ancestor, Ēostre).

After the ban was made, Kim decided to notify me that there was a discussion going on about me at the Administrator's Noticeboard. As a result, I was unable to participate. Very convenient! In his edit summary when notifying me, Kim also ceded that the block was "potentially controversial". Hum.

Anyway, I request that this ban be lifted. I feel that the ban is completely inappropriate; this article has very real issues with neutrality that the NPOV tag exists to reflect. It is there to note that neutrality has been called into question, and, indeed, several users on the talk page have discussed that the article totally negates the secular and downplays or ignores the non-Christian and that this needs to be fixed. The article should not be given any special treatment, regardless of if Easter Sunday is tomorrow—these issues need to be addressed. I am essentially being blocked—by an involved administrator—to keep the Easter page free of neutrality discussion and without an {{NPOV}} tag until after Easter is over!

Accept reason:

I've unblocked for procedural reasons -- the lack of notification about the ANI discussion was improper. I suggest you limit yourself to talk page discussion about Easter for the next day or so, since you can now participate in the relevant ANI discussion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So that is where this block extends from. How convenient that nobody notified me until now! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, FoxCE made the report to AN/I here but neglected to inform you. I had not realised this until I went myself to AN/I to ask for a block review and informed you myself. This is an important procedural error and I will ask FoxCE not to repeat it (and to apologise to you for the omission). I'm sorry if this lack of communication has added to the problem here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you realize that this looks like a nice and quick block hit job, don't you? If I had been notified, this certainly would not have played out like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloodofox, you seem to have been edit warring since April 5 to keep your version of the etymology in the article. Since you are a very experienced editor, you must know that this would raise eyebrows. I'm sorry you weren't informed of the ANI. As I stated in the ANI, I would support an unblock if you would agree not to edit Easter until its main-page appearance is over. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ed, as is quite apparent on the talk page, I have been discussing numerous aspects of the article page, and not simply "edit warring" over exactly what to include in the introduction. The issues are multiple, the primary of which is the total lack of information about the strong secular elements of the holiday on the article. I've already been unblocked, and I strongly suggest that your get your facts straight before posting on my talk page next time. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why your five reverts since April 5 should not be viewed as edit warring, independent of any issue with your POV tag being improper? If your views were wildly popular, it is hard to understand why three different people would have been undoing your changes at Easter. Also, you've been participating in proper discussion at Talk:Easter for quite some time, and if your views had won a consensus there it surely would be evident by now. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Five reverts"? Now that sounds quite nasty, doesn't it? Can you tally up all the other reverts done by numerous other editors since then? Would you care to tally up the amount of comments by users stating they agree with my points on the talk page? Do you have some way of quantifying exactly how archaic and obscure things like historical linguistics and Germanic philology are to the general public, and why it is so difficult to explain these matters to them? And, do tell, EdJohnston, what my "views" are that should win consensus! Are they that they article does not reflect the major, secular elements of the holiday? If so, it seems pretty evident that they have, indeed, won over consensus. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's unfair that other people have not been agreeing with your views? Isn't that the very definition of consensus? It's your job to to convince the other editors, untutored though they may be in Germanic philology. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that a lot of time is spent informing people unfamiliar with the basic background needed to approach the subject. Secondly, what are these "views" of "mine"? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that if you repeat any of your edits to the article, I will have no hesitation in blocking you as you are now fully aware of everything. You should continue to discuss easter bunnies etc on the article talkpage, but you clearly do not have consensus for your edits at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that I am formally requesting you not to leave drive-by threats on my talk pages about blocks that should not have been made in the first place. If you want to get into the discussion at the Easter talk page, you are welcome to, but grand-standing and badge-flashing won't earn you any points, whoever you are. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks jpgordon for the procedural unblock - I would have done so myself having been thinking about the lack of AN/I notification, but was AFK. Had I realised the lack of AN/I notification I wouldn't have blocked in the first place. Now we're back at the status quo ante, I will also ask that you (Bloodofox) not restore the POV tag on the article, or make edits to the article that have not achieved consensus on the talk page. To do so will be disruptive in my opinion, and worthy of a block - this time procedurally correct. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I think you owe me an apology for the sheer amount of time wasted here. Secondly, I strongly disagree with your nonsensical threat of ban over adding an NPOV tag to the article as the article has a long history of discussion of bias and lack of neutrality in the article even prior to my recent threads (and subsequent mass agreement that the article is not neutral—making the tag entirely appropriate). However, given the amount of time you've already wasted of mine over this nonsense, I'm not going to put myself in a place where you can slap me with another attempt at a 48 hour ban and require me to write up another block request. What a ridiculous situation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I happily repeat my apology about lack of AN/I notification. Had I realised you had not been notified, I would not have blocked you at that stage. I have asked FoxCE to be more careful in notifying users about AN/I threads in future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I also wish to apologize for my lack of notification relating to the AN/I—it was my first time contributing to that page and I was not aware of the notification prodecure. I did not participate in any explicit discussion for your block (so I did not support it), but I do wholeheartedly support the unblock as inappropriate given the situation. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a drive by - you obviously haven't noticed me camped on your doorstep. And I'm not threatening to ban you, just warning you that edit warring against consensus is blockable. As your stated aim is to improve the encyclopaedia, I'm sure you won't disrupt it again to make a WP:POINT, and I can limit myself to admiring the view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no "point" being made in my edits, just as there is no "point" being made to the rest of my numerous edits and article rewrites. Further, you seem confused; there is no "consensus" here being acted against by myself. Kim has simply decided to block anyone who adds {{npov}} to the article, regardless of there being a long-time, widespread agreement on the talk page that the article is, in fact, not neutral, mainly due to ignoring all things secular. His reasons for doing this are so that the page can be on the main page tomorrow, Easter Sunday, apparently. I don't think this is acceptable admin or user behavior, as it's essentially hiding the fact that there's a neutrality dispute as a means to make the article look better than it is. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can count you know. Number of reverts, number of editors disagreeing with you. All to insert a point about what...the amount of chocolate sold (that's the secular aspect of Easter, isn't it...? Boosting sales of non-recyclable packaging containing small quantities of inferior chocolate). Oh sorry, was this not your point. You seemed to have been talking about alleged pagan links, not sales of confectionery. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that you can count, but it doesn't seem as if you have. Do a headcount of the percentage of users on the talk page who have stated that the article does not include secular aspects of the holiday and needs to and then get back to me. I think you'll find it pretty high. Regarding your future pie chart, I should point out that the secular element involves more than chocolate sales—you also need to include basket sales, fake grass, dye, plastic eggs, etc. The secular element is my main point. The pagan element is considerably thornier. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If there has been longstanding agreement on the talk page about the POV nature of the article, this has only been reflected in the last 24 hours with a tag. That seems a strange lapse; why the tag now, of all days? I think it's reasonable to assert that adding the tag now was an attempt to game the system. Of course I can't see into your heart and know that was the case; it's just my judgement. If you think I'm behaving unacceptably you are welcome to make your case here. As your block was overturned you remain an editor in good standing and are welcome to do so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen you repeatedly accusing me of "setting up" the dispute. That's ridiculous, and I will thank you to throw that notion to the wind. It's Easter. People checkout the Easter article, including me. That's where the edits came from, and there's no need to conjure up a conspiracy theory about it. Anyone can see that the talk page is filled with thread after thread of users talking about bias and issues with the article. I suggest that you reinstitute the tag and rescind your block threat. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see a number of editors pushing fringe viewpoints - that's not the same thing at all as bias. Easter is the major Christian festival, with a small side order in sales of chocolate, and the very curious fact (quite adequately represented in the article) that the name of the festival in English isn't christian at all. Quite the opposite to Christmas, where the name is christian but the festival has all but forgotten its religious roots in large parts of the English speaking world, in favour of a secular festival promoting shopping. You keep referring to 'secular' - outside of easter egg sales, what do you mean by 'secular'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Control or command + F the word "secular" on the talk page and you will find that the majority of the users on the page explicitly comment that the article needs to better reflect the secular aspects of the holiday. Many non-Christians also celebrate the holiday in regions where it is celebrated, and they do so with Easter eggs, Easter bunnies, and all sorts of pastels. This is explicitly extra-biblical and non-religious. Indeed, on the talk page I produce a number of solid, academic references talking about exactly these elements of Easter. See a smattering of said references that I explicitly outline here. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading it. You seem to be majoring on trying to prove that Easter is a pagan festival. Dude, you're on a hiding to nothing with that argument. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hiding to nothing"? Did you mean to type that? If so, I don't understand. Further, I have not and certainly do not consider "Easter [...] a pagan festival". I'm not sure where you're getting that impression. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a common UK English expression, means 'putting effort into something that isn't achievable' or similar. I'm reading what you've written - if it's not what you meant then that is a problem. If you're not advancing an argument that Easter is a pagan festival, why is 90% of your contribution on the talkpage about how Easter "has a significant history that far predates its Christianization" (your words) and "there's a lot of scholarly work out there discussing levels of potential synthesis between today's Christian Easter and yesterday's heathen Eostre-monath/Eostre-celeberations out there. Indeed, the fact that the name is used points to synthesis on par with Yule and Christmas." (a few more of your words) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I didn't pick on this particular idiom, I think it's fairly apparent that English is my mother language. On the Easter article, a lot of my time there regarding "pagan" is spent correcting people on the subject. See also the Ēostre article, of which I am the primary author. Further, Easter is no more "pagan" than Christmas is; syncretism does not make something "pagan". Indeed, both Yule prior to Yule-Christmas and Eostre-monath prior to Christian-Eostre/Easter had a long history before Christianization/synthesis with their respective imported Christian holidays. There's nothing remotely controversial about that. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion based on these statements? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking in terms of translation from brain to script, but you are using 'secular' to mean 'non-christian'(a meaning it lost in the Reformation) not 'non-religious', and you are deliberately treating "pagan" as "not including heathen", a usage only found among modern followers of Germanic/Scandinavian spirituality (where it is mostly used to distinguish them from Wiccans). It's no wonder you're getting into fights with people. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Elen, I mean secular as in non-religious. The historical pagan issues and the secular bunnies, baskets, and egg hunts are different issues. There two main things I'm dealing with on the talk page; the secular aspects and the historical heathen aspects. See the references I provide in the thread I link you to above. Two of them are about American secular (non-religious) Easter customs, whereas another is about modern Germanic neopagan veneration of Ēostre. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I can read you know. You're either not saying what you think you're saying, or you've changed tack on what you want to say since this whole thing started. And neopagans don't hold festivals for Eostre on Easter Sunday. The date of Easter is fixed using a Christian calendar which uses the same system as the Jewish one for calculating Pesach (which is a lunar festival), except that early on the Christians fixed the date of the vernal equinox as 21 March, to stop Easter moving around too much, and they also early on learned how to use an almanac and stopped requiring a priest to actually see the moon in the sky. A system the Muslims still use to determine the start and finish of Ramadan. The grandmothers of the Germanic pagans used to hold spring festivals on the vernal equinox, unconnected to Easter entirely. It would be interesting if you have sources establishing when the Americans started with the eggs and bunnies thing. If it's anything like Hallowe'en, you might be able to prove that modern Easter was invented by Hershey. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I've been responding to comments on the talk page about Ēostre, and "this whole thing started" who knows how long ago on the talk page. Neutrality remains a serious issue. You can clearly read and count, but you seem to be being very selective. Further, you might find that if you read the Ēostre article, you'd see Grimm discussing "eggs and bunnies" in the early 19th century, and it was hardly new then. As for the date of Germanic Heathen celebration of Ēostre, it's going to depend on when they do it. Again, had you read Ēostre, you'd note that the date of the feasts (festa) attested by Bede are unknown, but that they occurred, of course, during Ēostre-month. I've known heathens to respond to modern Easter with an Easter (i.e. from OE Ēostre) of their own, as the modern date of Easter falls well within the range of said festivals. It doesn't help that academic coverage of Germanic neopaganism is sparse, but I'm sure there are sources out there quite explicitly stating this. It's just a matter of digging for them. However, my attention must again soon turn elsewhere, and I've taken what is left of my Wikipedia time to further add to the Ēostre article. All of this block farce nonsense was unwelcome, uncalled for, unappreciated, and took up a lot of time that could have been better spent working on articles, but that's the downside of Wikipedia. And I'm still waiting for that tally from you about other users commenting on the lack of neutrality in the article in agreement with me. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

See, we're still being separated by a common language here - in this case humour. However, lets not fall out over it. Neutrality is a serious issue, and at least it's been discussed now, rather than just tagging (which was the problematic thing, as I cannot see that you had consensus for it). I will decamp and leave your talkpage in peace, wishing you ¡Felices Pascuas, Frohe Ostern, God påske, Wesołych Świąt, or whatever you choose to call it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"As I cannot see that you had consensus for it"? Like I said, do a count. You'll find just about every user commenting that the article is does not reflect the secular aspects of the holiday. Consensus is pretty solid. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The TAG. I do not believe you had consensus to put the tag on the article at that time. Come on, even I have observed that it needs information about Easter as a secular holiday. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Elen, when was the last time we needed consensus to tag an articles for issues obviously needed on the talk page? If you agree, then you're welcome to tag it. Someone should. Surely you realize how ridiculous it is to threaten to block users for tagging and article for NPOV issues when essentially every editor on the talk page has explicitly mentioned that the article is not neutral. There should be some repercussions for that sore of admin grandstanding. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh do stop WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you have to edit war to keep something on a page, you haven't got consensus for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, so in other words you see no problem with this threat. I guess that's why you came around here in the first place... :bloodofox: (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent) Bloodofox, I've pointed out above the procedure for calling poor admin actions to account. If you think you have a case, you're welcome to use it. I suspect you don't think you have a case, which is why you haven't. But best of all, why not divert some of the energy here and on the Easter talk page into actually improving the article? Suggest some wording, draft a compromise, try and meet other editors' objections. It's the same deal as at Germanic neopaganism; no matter how right you think you are, you have to work with the other editors at the page and that is the place where you'll get your point across, in collaboration with others who at first sight take an opposing view. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you've already wasted enough of my time, and I'm hardly going to be patronized by your invitation to your ridiculous recall invitation. Regarding the Germanic neopaganism article, there's no analogy between this situation and the guiding I've provided there, so I have no idea why you even mention it. As you well know, I've written and rewritten numerous GA articles for this project that require heavy collaboration, and I have absolutely no reason to be further insulted by you. In other words, I suggest you take your digital sheriff's badge off of my talk page until you have a real reason to be here and maybe concentrate on doing something useful somewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the congrats:-) This was all ... sudden. I'm going to try hard to live up to people's trust in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be difficult for you, Yngvadottir. You always do your research and have certainly displayed that you can contribute to and build articles, something one won't find most users—especially administrators—with experience with. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hay, Bloodofox! Happy Easter and greetings from Croatia. Do you remember me, it's me, Michelle. I also want to ask you - is there any source in Norse mythology for a mother of god Höðr? Is that maybe Frigg? And can you please tell me should we delete this infobox - Template:Infobox Norse deity?

I hope you enjoyed the Easter weekend! Be well.--Your Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.214.106 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Mychele! It has been some time. In response to your questions:

1. Outside of the heavy euhemerization of Gesta Danorum (where Höðr is Latinized as Hotherus), attestations of Höðr's parentage seem to be limited to one mention in Skáldskaparmál ("son of Odin"). Unfortunately, his mother is nowhere mentioned in the Old Norse corpus. This is particularly unfortunate given the immense difference between Saxo and Eddaic material involving Höðr and Baldr. It might have helped to illuminate the situation a bit better.
2. I am generally against the addition of info boxes to mythology articles. I feel that they offer nothing that a well-written introduction cannot, and often seek to simplify what should not be. Therefore I think that the info box template should be deleted, yes.

I hope that you had a nice Easter as well! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bloodofox! :)

From what I have understand, Ymir had three children - one son whose name I cannot write, one nameless son and one nameless daughter. I redirected pages for them on Ymir's article, but do you agree with that?

Hello Mychele! It is unclear if Þrúðgelmir is one of the two sons of Ymir (the many-headed one or otherwise), although he would logically be a descendent of some sort. As for the redirects, I don't see why not. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Vetting

Bloodofox: your editing at Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism) has become disruptive. Multiple times you have been asked to provide supporting evidence for your deletion of cited content. Multiple times you have responded with variations on "this section needs to be vetted" rather than discuss the content itself (see Talk:Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)). By "insisting" on "vetting" the article, you are attempting to impose a process totally alien to Wikipedia, and disrupting the natural editorial sequence and improvement of the article. Can I respectfully suggest you state your actual concerns with the cited text you are deleting. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Spare me, Davemon. After what you tried to pull there, you should be apologizing on the talk page rather than "taking it here" and attempting to paint the situation as if anyone but you is repeatedly "ask[ing] to provide supporting evidence". I've repeated the issue to you multiple times. Once again, after your evident lack of understanding of Gimbutas's place in modern scholarship and subsequent attempt at painting a mainstream scholar as a fringe nut job, just modifying the text is not enough; the references attributed need to be checked out to say exactly what you claim they say by an outside party. Next time get a better understanding of the material you're adding before you add it and this process won't be necessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The attempts to rephrase your disruptive editing as some kind of "vetting process" is hilarious, thanks for the laugh. Perhaps you should try reading through wp:own. Can you cite any sources showing Gimbutas Goddess theories good standing in the academic community? thought not. Can you show where the text you're deleting is not actually supported by the sources? no. It's clear you have a a very one-sided view of the subject, based on very narrow reading of the subject. Perhaps more research is required before deciding to try to censor views you don't like. Let's be clear: it is your refusal to give basic evidence for your removal of cited content and your attempts to disrupt the normal editing process wp:brd which is the behavior you need to address.Davémon (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, Davemon, your response above is neither reflective of my comments on the talk page nor the situation at hand; you're the one who wrote the material and I've had little to do with the article, thus WP:OWN is invalid, I've never claimed Gimbutas's goddess theories were widely accepted (nor would I), etc, etc. Like I said before, your initial fumbling around with a Gimbutas write up that attempted to paint her as some sort of fringe figure rather than a well known and respected academic means that the sources need to be checked to say what they now say since the text was changed to reflect reality. Nobody is "censoring" anything—what you should be taking away here is a lesson to do your research or expect to be corrected if you don't. Otherwise your fumbling around will, yes, be "disrupted", which is what I suppose you mean. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Hello, Bloodofox! It's me again. I must to ask several questions, if you have a time:

• Is "j" in "Njordr" prounounced as "y" in "yes"?
• When I was editing pages about Jötnar on Croatian Wikipedia, I called them "giants" (divovi on Croatian). But I think that in ancient myths they were never imagined as real, huge giants, but rather like humans. -Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.179.233 (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Mychele! Sort of like English <y>, yes. A few anglicizations are Neord and Neorth, which provide phonetic approximations for English tongues. As for your point about the jötnar, you are correct—while the jötner appear huge sometimes, they're generally hard to define, but I don't think their size is a definitive feature at all in the Old Norse material. "Giant" is a really inappropriate gloss for this reason, and, in my opinion, is just another example of a clumsy superimposition of a Greco-Roman concept on the Old Norse material. How to define jötunn, troll, risi, and thurs (and/or gýgir and íviðja) is a tough one. I advise just using the native term. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Historicity of Skaði

I have not closely reviewed your edits here. There are several sources for Odin and his contemporaries represeting in some part genuine historical figures. I think the article should be clearly worded to reflect that Skaði was (purportedly) an actual person married to Odin. Also the coverage in this article of the genealogical inconsistencies is vague and confusng. Maybe we should ask Skaði. Want her number? Obotlig (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Obotlig, I had this outlined in the article introduction before some vandal came by and altered it, and I've changed it back after checking out your edits. I think simply stating that she appears euhemerized is enough, as the skaldic material is presented alongside the euhemerization in Ynglinga saga. One wonders if Snorri was simply covering himself, as the euhemerization is pretty transparent. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vandalism. I'm not clear what the euhemerization being transparent means. Looking at the material it does seem pretty sketchy and have some of the common genealogical and consistency problems. I hope someone can sort these stories out some day. Obotlig (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for bringing it to my attention. By "transparent" I mean that Snorri seems to lay it all out for us all to see, and makes it perfectly clear when he's applying euhemerism. This is in striking contrast with, say, Saxo, who gleefully mangles his source material to fit his moral objectives. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In Ynglinga Saga that section seems fairly fantastical compared to the introduction to the Prose Edda. However the historicity seems clear to me. This is a description of the real Skadi for the most part. Is there not any modern scholarship on this topic? Obotlig (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Snorri is, of course, attempting to craft a cohesive narrative for the purpose of Ynglinga saga and Heimskringla. This narratives don't necessarily match the material at its core, the much earlier Ynglingatal. As a result, Snorri was here both preserving the heathen Ynglingatal and crafting a royal history for his clients that would be acceptable in a Christian context. Snorri was unique in his desire to preserve these heathen works alongside Christian interpretation, and we're quite fortunate that we had him rather than just, say, Saxo. Anyway, the layer of euhemerization is generally thought to be just like any other that one would find in a Northern European lineage (i.e. king Odin, Hengist and Horsa foundation myth), but some of the details that Snorri includes very likely have their roots in mythology, and scholars have commented on that here and there. I include a lot of such comments in the rewrites I've done. Perhaps most infamously, Thor Heyerdahl took the migration story in Ynglinga saga at face value (Jakten på Odin).

Also, I've noticed that you added a bunch of BLP tags to some mythology article talk pages, such as Nerthus ([10]). These tags are for living people. These should be removed. Did you mean to add something else? :bloodofox: (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edits - Faycan

Hi, Bloodofox,

I'm Faycan_Medina. I write you about the reverted edit in the post of Líf and Lífþrasir. I edited that the Líf' name was a female name, and you reverted it. I would like discuss it with you, because I think tha you are in a mistake.

The name Líf appears as a female name in many source, more that as male name. Futhermore, the termination consonant+ir usually is a male name (Lífþrasir)and not female. Professor Lerate, of Uppsala University and specialist in the translation and studies of norse mithology it's agree with the theory of Líf is a female name and Lífþrasir is the male name.

Also, we can see the semantic meanning. Líf, as you know, means "life". In norse mithology and in the old germanic and scandinavian cultures, women are related withe the life. They are the given of life, the first priestesses (then this job was too for men, always with female dresses) and figures of fertility. Lífþrasir's means, however, reference to the need of life. Following this, it's easy suppose that Lífþrasir needs life, and, as women are the given of life, needs Líf.

Maybe, the mistake come from the Lorenz Frolich's illustration. We can't take literally this illustration, because the words can no be directly related with the above figure. Maybe the design is in cross (as the plants of back) or... who know.

You can read many books of specialist like: - Dumezil, George. Germanic's gods. 1978.

-Bermúdez, Enrique. Los mitos germanos. Madrid: Alianza. 2002.

-Cleasby, Richard and Guðbrandr Vigfusson. An Icelandic-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. 1957.

-Geirr Bassi Haraldsson. The Old Norse Name. Studia Marklandica I. Olney, MD: Markland Medieval Militia. 1977.

-Davidson, Hilda Ellis. Roles of the Northern Goddess. London, New York: Routledge. 1998.

-Fellows-Jensen, Gillian. Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 1968.

Thanks for your time and sorry for my english.

Best Regards,

Faycan Medina (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! It looks like there was a mix up there. Thanks for catching this! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ideal Man in Norse Mythology

G'day. I'm wondering if you know what the hell I'm talking about.

I'm considering writing an essay on the Confucianist idea of Junzi, or the "Ideal Man". I know that the Norse also had a similar ideal which they applied to Polymaths or Renaissance Men because, bloody hells, I've read about it somewhere. I remember that two of the requirements as far as whomever wrote that was that the ideal man develop himself in terms of Skaldic Poetry and Game playing (or Tafl). But I can't remember the others (or where I read it, or whether what I read it in was credible or, I don't know, Horrible Histories - I'm a school teacher).

I was wondering if, in your travels, you've seen something similar and would know where I could read further? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Are you by chance thinking of Hávamál, a poem from the Poetic Edda? The poem largely consists of practical advice for mankind from the god Odin. One could easily produce an outline of behavior for an "ideal man" from said poem. Otherwise it sounds like you might be thinking of something from the saga corpus that I can't think of off hand. I'll let you know if something comes to mind. Good luck. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)