User talk:Bloodofox

Mandatory Greeting

Hello Bloodofox, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
• Experiment in the sandbox.
• Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
• Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
• Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
• Be bold in updating pages.
• Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
• And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

Runes

hi boo -- I am a little bit disturbed by your unexplained removal of references to fascist symbolism etc. from Algiz and Odal rune. If you wish to make the point that the runes are also used unpolitically by Asatru adherents, you are very welcome to add that information, citing your sources. This should be entirely uncontroversial. However, if you wish to remove information to the political usage of the runes, both historical and contemporary, you would need to argue your reasons on the articles' talk pages, particularly when the information you wish to remove is backed up by sources. Likewise, claims that the algiz rune is "more recognized" as "cultural badges" are inherently biased, and you absolutely need to cite what source you are basing the claim on. I realize that you are new to Wikipedia, and I am sure that you are editing in good faith. regards, dab (ᛏ) 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dab, I think we've reconciled this issue. Sorry it took me so long to get around to respond to this and I appreciate your patience. --Bloodofox 18:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

MiniMoni

Not sure how familar, if anything, you are with MiniMoni's first album or even with the band themselves, but FYI, the "correction" you made on the martial music wikilink, changing it to just martial was wrong. --Cjmarsicano 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, inspecting the current Wikipedia definition for martial, it seems some work needs to be done there to attempt to make it clear that the phrase itself may also refer specifically to anything militant, without the specific cannotations of the historical figure. In the mean time, I've gone back to the article I just edited and replaced it with march music, since this is what I assume you're refering to. The article on martial music/martial industrial/military pop is about a specific post-industrial genre of music that emerged in Europe probably around 15 years ago. I seriously doubt that there's a connection to the two and I'm assuming it's just confusion based around the phrase, since martial music could potentially refer to any sort of military-influenced music. --Bloodofox 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Gothcore bands

Should List of Gothcore bands be speedied after Gothcore was AfD? Found it by searching WP --Paul foord 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds right to me. The entire article was entirely biased around a single band and bands that they (he) wanted to compare themselves to. Thanks for the help! :bloodofox: 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Death In June

Hello Bloodofox Here Christophe, actual webmaster of both sites www.deathinjune.net and www.deathinjune.org - I wonder by the way if we haven't already been in contact in the past, but anyway... Please could you contact me on my email dij-fr@kerozene.phpnet.org or either kris-g@cegetel.net. I have a few elements to contribute to your excellent page about DIJ, and as I don't feel confortable at all with Wiki's system it'd be better to discuss it by email. I had started translating your page in French on the french wikipedia, but you've done a lot of updates since then, so....... I'll also ask Douglas if he's ok about adding a link to this wikipedia page on DIJ's official website. Thanks & take care. Christophe

Greetings Christophe! I've sent you a response via e-mail as requested. :bloodofox: 05:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hávamál

Nice to see some work going on at Hávamál. Maybe we could collaborate somewhere? I'm currently working on Freyr among other things. - Haukur 18:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. From what I can see, you're doing an excellent job and I can definitely learn from your formatting. I'd like to help where and when I can. This sort of thing is why I'm using Wikipedia in the first place! The Havamal page needs major work, a list of translations would be especially beneficial. I just did a little clean up job for the moment to make it more presentable. The page itself needs major work for being such a major and important source for the subject, I hope to be able to help flesh it out as much as possible. :bloodofox: 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Eschewing Neo-Paganism

I just read your comments at Germanic Paganism and I agree 100%. If you have the time, will you give your opinion on this same issue over at Polytheistic_Reconstructionism? It's the same discussion, different venue, different POV pushers :D -- HroptR 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I would be glad to assist. :bloodofox: 05:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have anything to fill out the entry, or can watchlist it to keep an eye on it, I would be most appreciative! --HroptR 05:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's on my watchlist and I'm sure I'll have something to contribute in time. :bloodofox: 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Swastika and OR

I have researched this. I have discussed this more times than I care to remember. There is no evidence that the Swastika played any role in Germanic paganism. The fylfot thing is debunked. I know of no Germanic Neopagan group that insists on using the Swasktika, other than OR. They are stuck with the "fylfot", and airily claim the symbol is part of their tradition for 5,000 years. This is not good "reconstructionism". In any case, it is up you to back up your claim. We agree that the OR claims the Swastika as "heathen". Name other groups. dab (ᛏ) 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continues on Dab's talk page. :bloodofox: 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Poly Recon

Sorry, we both edited at the same time: link you want to come behind me and fix what you want changed? Sorry...-HroptR 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No trouble, I just broke up the lengthy introduction a bit with an overview section. I'll go back and do it again. :bloodofox: 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Proto-Germanic"

[1] I'm sorry, but how do you come up with this stuff? I can accept that you have a strong "Internet Heathen" viewpoint, and I'm fine with your adding of all sorts of Neopagan stuff found on the internet, but sometimes your statements are really pulled out of thin air. In this case, there is no case at all that these forms even remotely qualify as "Proto-Germanic", so why bother? dab (ᛏ) 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Allow me to clarify. You may be notice I've been going through and formatting a lot of articles lately. A lot of the Germanic Paganism articles are a mess and almost unreadable. I was attempting to condense a bunch of the info there and make an overview section for the Odin article before making some redirect pages, which it could probably use. My mistake.

Unfortunately, I got started on something else and I forgot about it mid-way through and didn't go back to it. The article doesn't mention the "Othinn" spelling, which is variant for the name that is sometimes used, correctly or not.

I've been adding a bunch of stuff to the Germanic Paganism category too. I'm not sure exactly what's supposed to go in there and have just been collecting things that seem to be appropriate for it with mixed results, which I've been intending to ask about.

When have I pulled something out of thin air? What's this about 'all sorts of neopagan stuff'? I back my additions up with references whenever possible and I'm personally far more interested in fact than someone's interpretation or personal spin on it, especially here. Internet Heathen? Is that some sort of jab? Am I stepping on your toes or something? What's with the tone? :bloodofox: 09:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't deny you're doing some good work. But a lot of your additions are only barely defensible. By "thin air", I mean "google". Your idea of "backing up with references" seems to be "do a google search". This is fine, as a first step, but you seem quite reluctant to part with anything you found on the internet, even in the face of academic references. If you're interested in facts, we should get along fine. But you never came forward with the reference that that shoulder pad was designed as an Odal rune. Your reply to my criticism on Swastika was "do a google search" -- you removed the fact that OR argues for the "fylfot" as an ancient symbol, replacing it with "Neopagans as found on the internet". You seem fond of spiriting away solid references to fascist symbolism as "often found on the internet, also in unpolitical contexts". A lot of your edits are like this, you google something, and phrase whatever you came up with as "commonly found" or "often held". If you're interested in facts, consult the literature, and come up front with what you have consulted. It is possible to discuss Neopaganism in encyclopedic style. Just, it is necessary to document exactly who holds what, on what basis. Just treating Neopaganism as a fuzzy cloud to be probed by google searches won't do at all. I'm just tired of having to double check most of your edits, I am glad for your contributions, but you should really double check your own stuff rather than rely on other editors cleaning up after you. dab (ᛏ) 09:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you're annoyed by a few of the contributions I've attempted to defend in particular. Regarding the Odinic Rite edit, I'm not sure what the problem is there. I simply stated that it wasn't limited to the Odinic Rite from my experiences with the suject before I even came around here, on the internet or not, which is true. I'm well aware that google searches are flimsy, you always have to check your sources. But when you're referring to neopagans as an active, growing group of people and their use of symbolism, it's clear that just about anything ancestral is fair game and, given the stigma of the Third Reich and the use by Neo-Nazi groups, many of these symbol-related articles -need- a small mention of use by neopagan groups, which they largely didn't have before I came around. Why? Otherwise these pages are doing little else but furthering them as hate symbols, which isn't doing anyone a service without some sort of political agenda. Both off the internet and on it, these symbols are being used and it deserves a mention to reflect that. I understand a lot of my edits have been sort of vague regarding this subject, though when it comes to reference for particular items or places, I'm not interested in vagueness either - I want to know exactly how it relates, why and where. :bloodofox: 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)