User talk:Bloodofox/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nomination of Ethereal beings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethereal beings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Smallman12q (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So...

Not sure why this debate on the Ethereal Beings article is getting so emotional. Its not the end of the world whether it stays or goes. I haven't personally attacked you once, but it seems like the debate is becoming highly personal. If I'm mistaken and you feel that I've somehow personally attacked you, it wasn't my intent. So can we agree to be reasonable? -- Avanu (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, no one at the request for deletion is being "unreasonable" at the moment but yourself. I have no emotion invested in this case; it's clear cut, and I can't see myself getting emotional about a Wikipedia article regardless of the content. However, I suggest that you step back and take a closer look at your strategy. By reducing the deletion arguments of others—which are by far the majority at this point—to inaccurate single sentences, you're only going to continue to bring a hornets nest down upon yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me be clear then. Some of you guys are acting emotional, and your attacking comments aren't helpful. I'm not arguing for the existence of the article, I am simply saying that "steaming pile" isn't a sufficient answer. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the "emotional" business. I don't see anyone acting "emotional". I'm not going round and round with you. I refer you back to the votes and the original article talk page, where you'll find much discussion about exactly why the article is so deeply in the red in WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY. In the mean time, I'll thank you to stick to the talk page until you have something new to add. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi, bloodofox! Please, can you help me?! How to make archive?

Also, can you tell me something about god Dyeus, who seems to be related to Thor? Be well!--Miha (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mychele, sorry for the delay in response. What kind of archive are you looking to make? As for *Dyeus, here's a link to a great source on the subject; page 230+. But do let me know if you can't see it. *Dyeus would actually be linguistically connected to Proto-Germanic *Tiwaz (later Old Norse Týr) rather than Thor. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks! Yes, I heard that *Dyeus is related to Týr. On our page about Dyeus it is written that Thor is too related to *Dyeus. I was asking about talk page archives. I saw you have one such archive on the right top of your talk page.--Miha (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Functionally there is evidently overlap, but linguistically there is no connection that I know of. As for automated talk page archiving, take a look at this. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --Miha (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A gentle tut-tut

My mama would give you a lecture on braggin' about yourself. Check out the contributions to mythology made by Phlyaristis, for instance, with 282 articles created and all of them (I think at a glance) related to mythology. There are several editors who work in classical mythology and ancient religions who either have made significant contributions at a high level of quality, such as User:Haploidavey, or have a great number of contributions. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think referring to myself as "likely the most prolific editor on [mythology]" on Wikipedia is "bragging" (if you were serious? Always hard to tell on Wikipedia...). But I do think it's a statement that I can stand by. That said, I would love to see my contributions dwarfed by the quality contributions of others; I would be very happy to see more Wikipedia mythology articles brought up to WP:GA standards. Right now they're often very poor, including most of our Classical mythology articles. Our current mythology GA count sadly, pathetic. It does look like Phlyaristis is doing some good work. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If I was serious, I wouldn't have dropped my 'g'! I was just teasing you. Sorry! The serious point was that I feel there are editors who do good work in this area. I worked out my personal standards for mythology articles at Pluto (mythology). I toil away at what seems to be hundreds of unsourced or poorly stubs on minor deities, as well as working on articles about ancient Greek and Roman religion, and contributing sections on Rome and sometimes Greece to overview articles such as libation, relic, tutelary deity, or Ordination of women. You'll have to forgive me for feeling that my colleagues and I were slighted! Then again, most of the people I'm thinking of contribute more in the area of ancient religion than to mythology articles as such. These are often indeed in such a sad state that the best one can do without starting from scratch is to ward off the vandals and Percy Jackson fans. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean; there's a vast amount of work that needs to be done here yet. Once I get the Germanic sphere into acceptable shape (Odin, Norse mythology, and Germanic mythology, for example, still loom large), then I'll be of more help on other non-Germanic articles. Perhaps we should all come together and discuss a sort of template on how to approach rewriting mythology articles or a manual of style article of our own. I've rewritten quite a few mythology articles now, and having built upon Haukurth (talk · contribs)'s and Berig (talk · contribs)'s methods prior to me, I've more or less found that there's a straightforward approach that can be applied to nearly all of them—especially poorly attested figures—that results in a neutral, solid foundation to expand from. I suspect other users have helpful input to add as well. I'm sure that all of our mythology-related articles will be first-rate thanks to editors such as yourself, but perhaps we could speed the process up by making it somehow easier to do by others as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Baltic mythology

Just curious. Have you gotten one of the free Highbeam accounts? If you haven't drop me an e-mail. It seems to have the entirety of the Encyclopedia of Religion on it, and although I don't want to abuse the account, I think I probably could e-mail you the 10 or 20 articles from that source which deal explicitly with "Baltic mythology." Although I haven't read it thoroughly yet, one of those articles strikes me as being perhaps very relevant to the current discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello John, sorry for my delay in responding here. My internet access has been spotty lately and I thought I had gotten back to you on this. I appreciate your offer and will drop you a line if I need something in particular. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Glaur

Hello, Bloodofox! How are you? (Do you live somewhere in north?) I have a question about Glaur, wife of Mundilfari. Is she mentioned in Eddas or just in Encyclopedia Mythica? Also, there is a problem with this online encyclopedia, because I cannot put a link on article in this encyclopedia.--Miha (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, from what I saw, you are too on a Wikibreak! But when you return, you will see this - I love you! I am taking little vacation called Wikibreak. I do not know when I will return here. Until then, be happy in every part of life! Be happy and with smile on Wikipedia, on our dear home, and in your home, too! Farewell to thee, because I now must depart! Aloha ʻOe!--Miha (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Miha! Thank you for your kind words; it's always a pleasure to work with you here. Yes, you are correct that Glaur seems to be simple misinformation from the notorious Encyclopedia Mythica. Encyclopedia Mythica is not considered a reliable source due to exactly this sort of thing. It's full of nonsense from who knows where.

And I have had and will for a while have limited internet access lately, it's true. I travel around a lot, and live in both the northerly and southerly depending on the time of the year (I travel a lot). But I will try to peek in now and then and contribute where I can find time. I wish you the same; farewell! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Borr

hi, bloodofox. We might want to move Borr to Burr. Symek lists it under the former - one may assume due to the fact that the Konungsbók recension of the Völuspá has the form Búr, though the Hauksbók recention apparently has Bor; Symek explicitly refers to Borr as the form favoured by Snorri. I've just reworked the article a bit, and added a note on this. What do you think about a move? Too pedantic? Answer me here on your talk, if you don't mind. I still haven't registered a new account. Cheers. 178.83.85.111 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the article needs some love in general. I don't know about the move; as you know, we're generally supposed to go with what is most commonly used, but if there's a good reason for sidestepping that, then we should. In this case, as long as we offer up the appropriate explanation, all is well in my opinion. I'd just go with Simek's listing unless more of a reason not to pops up. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Set of eyes?

Looks like we're getting there with evidence on Jagged85's video game editing. Just wondering if you might be interested in looking over Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Computer Games Evidence; it might be best if someone not particularly familiar with video gaming checked it. Otherwise, we'll probably proceed soon nevertheless. bridies (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. It's unfortunate this obvious conclusion came took so long to arrive at. I'm sure we'll agree that he should have been banned long ago. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hello. I wanted to let you know that someone suspects you of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox. De728631 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Response posted there. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Annabel Lee (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annabel Lee (musician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabel Lee (musician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bjelleklang - talk 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Phoenix (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Japanese, Heliopolis, Siva, Anka and Phoenician

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Phoenix (mythology) ...

... good work. Paul August ☎ 22:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I always enjoy feedback. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Help needed on Germanic Neopaganism

The page is stuck at the same point it was months ago, and user "ThorLives" has done nothing else than continuing the removal of any source or sentence which does not fit his point of view. This situation must finish, and the article has to be rewritten. Reliable sources have been found and listed in the talkpage. Please take a look. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated previously, this article requires a rewrite from scratch. Ask Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs) to leave the discussion—who I believe should not have adminship status—and I may assist in the mean time. Otherwise my only involvement will be when and if I eventually prepare a rewrite for the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baba Yaga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donor (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) 11:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Citing Wikis

You undid my revision because it cited a wiki and I was wondering why? Surely they are the most reliable source. I have not encountered this problem before. GamingWithStatoke (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Wikis are not reliable sources; they're simply aggregates of information that can change at any time. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability regarding general sourcing on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baba Yaga, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Babice and Lithuanian (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) 11:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wolpertinger

In this edit you reverted my edit that changed the grouping of the wolpertinger from "legendary creature" to "cryptid" so that it went back to "legendary creature". You said that I was "pseudo-sciencify"ing the article with "cryptozoology jargon". In Template:Infobox mythical creature, it states that groupings are typically "cryptid", "legendary creature", and "urban legend". Legendary creature would be proven to be false and disbelieved by the population, a cryptid something that cryptozoologists are still working on, and an urban legend a creature whose story was believed by some before people revealed that it was totally false. Now, there was no evidence given that people believed in the wolpertinger in the actual article until a revision added the cryptozoology template. This suggested that people in Bavaria believed in its existence and that it could qualify as a cryptid. This is not suggesting that it is real. I informed you of this because I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you about this. öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 02:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. No offense, but cryptozoology is a pseudo-science. Wikipedia does not employ cryptozoology jargon like "cryptid". I don't know what's going on with the template. This is a creature from Bavarian folklore and needs to be labeled as such. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe in cryptozoology, I am merely stating that when it comes to mythical creatures, if it is under the article List of cryptids and part of the template Template:Cryptozoology it should be labelled as a cryptid. öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to label things with pseudo-scientific terminology. If anything, we can at most note in the article body that cryptozoologists consider the creature to be a potential "cryptid", but it's ridiculous to go any further. This would also require a solid source. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Hobbit Harassment

I notice that you have begun inserting "Germanic" influence into The Hobbit on the occasion of its of a world-wide film release. This behavior is very similar to how you acted at [|Easter] - picking a time when an article is most popular to push your own interests onto an article. I'm sure you have a lot of good things to add to The Hobbit, but I will ask you to try and co-operate with other editors and tone down the belligerence on the talk-page (see WP:CIVIL). We actually have the same goal here. Thank you for your time. Davémon (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Davemon, unlike yourself, I'm not here to waste the time of others and I do my research prior to editing. I see you doing little but trolling, to be honest, of which this accusation is yet another example of. I frequently edit articles that are seasonally appropriate, especially when they're wrong on topics I'm familiar with. Please refrain from leaving pointless messages on my talk page in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I am asking you to stop harassing me. Thank you. Davémon (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You can save that request for when it actually happens. For example, if I for some reason to decide to pop on your talk page with baseless accusations (while requesting civility for bonus points). Sorry, harassment isn't my style; article space is my one and only objective on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean by harassment, all these incidents took place between 11th - 14 December 2012

Mischaracterising a simple request for clarity as 'Trolling" [1]
Calling me a troll, accusations of "lawyering". (along with refusal to supply requested sources) [2]
Calling me a troll, mischaracterising my edits as nonsense [3]
Calling me a troll [4]
Mischaracterisation of my editing as 'destructive' [5]
Mischaracterisation of my editing as 'spiteful'[6]
Calling me a Troll, calling my requests for properly cited text "time wasting" [7]
Calling my requests for properly cited text "time wasting" [8]

I am not going to go into great detail of the past, but I will point to your empty accusations of me "misrepresenting sources" earlier this year. [9] and [10], which was shown as wrong by two separate, independent editors [11] and [12] along with the whole discussion [13] where you persistently threatened to revert my edits without grounds.

It is the pattern of continual, persistent mischaracterisation, accusations and threats to revert my edits on no other grounds than that I made them that make me feel harassed, and I am asking you to stop this behaviour.

I have no intention of embroiling another editor in this, but you have been requested to stop the mischaracterisation of my editing here: [14]

I hope that clarifies for you. Davémon (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The narration you've provided for those particular edits seems typical to me of exactly what I've accused you of prior. All anyone has to do is read the rest of the threads you link to and go through your edit history. Particular revealing is your article contribution rate versus your talk page fight rate. If you in fact have an interest in avoiding such conflicts in the future, I suggest you (a) edit on topics you're more familiar with and/or be more cautiousin unfamiliar topic territory, (b) think twice before attempting to character assassinate (or make it appear to a number of editors that you are attempting to character assassinate) a highly influential scholar (i.e. Gimbutas), and (c) use talk pages sooner before reverting. That said, if you want to end my perceived characterization of your editing approach (and I'm not the only one around who has gotten this impression), all it takes is discussion to do it. Making accusations like the one you did when you opened this thread on my talk page isn't how to do it. I find messy talk page brawls to be the least appealing aspect of Wikipedia. It's not what I'm here for. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling people trolls (unless they live under bridges) isn't a cracking idea either. You've called this editor a troll five times now - if you do it again, you are likely to find yourself sanctioned for personal attacks. If you don't like talkpage brawls, don't go at it like you're in a bar. Just cite your sources properly and discuss what they say, and don't get so offended when people have different views. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I'm assuming you're lurking on my talk page from some incident past? Did you click those edit summaries or just read Davemon's narration? I suggest you do the prior, you'll in fact find that these edits cannot be summarized as "you've called this editor a troll five times now". And it might also help to introduce yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can recall exchanging the odd word with you before - in fact, having a whole dialogue about odd words, so I think you know who I am. I appreciate that you dont care for what you previously called 'drive by threats'. I don't appreciate users throwing words like 'troll' into discussions. You've tossed troll or trolling in the other guy's direction five times now - I can both read and count, and I don't care for wikilawyering. All I am saying is that you need to knock the troll on the head, and speak to the other editor as another human with a different viewpoint. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of wikilawyering, which is one of the things I accused Davemon above, because I've noted that "you've called this editor a troll five times now" is a inaccurate summary based on Davemon's own and you needed to amend it. Huh. But no, I don't remember you. I've been around here for several years and I have no shortage of talk page archives. Enlighten me. Whoever you are, by your tone it sounds to me like you might have some kind of axe to grind and that you're basing this response on Davemon's comments above more than any actual involvement, which makes me doubly curious. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

[15]. No comments on the merits of any aspect of the discussion at Talk:The Hobbit but you may not say that another user is "a step away from trolling", "go(ing) into straight out troll mode", that you'd "nominate (the other editor) for trolling", that you're "not here to feed trolls", or that the other editor is "accused of being a troll" (by you). Arguing that none of that is calling him a troll is wikilawyering, pure and simple, and any further instances of firing the t-word at another editor who is in discussion with you will have consequences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes. You're that user who popped up out of nowhere and threatened to block me if I did anything blockable after I was wrongly blocked and the block removed. And now you've got another drive-by threat for me. Thanks for your input but I'm afraid you're doing little more here than derailing a discussion that you were neither invited to nor involved with. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Claus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic Europe (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) 11:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yule

You might try dropping your ownership attitude toward this article. Wikipedia policy is to follow the secondary sources, so it not necessary to find the primary source. If you're the Yule expert, how come you don't know where Heimskringla first mentions Yule? Anyway, it is in "Saga of Hálfdan the Black", chapter 5, p. 54. ("During Yuletide King Hálfdan was being entertained in Heithmork.") Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"You might try dropping your ownership attitude toward this article" isn't a good way to begin a conversation. I own the Hollander translation; there's no need to link me to an Amazon purchase page. Your edit in question isn't about "where Heimskringla first mentions Yule" (which says nothing more about it other than "during Yuletide King Hálfdan was being entertained in Heithmork"), rather the issue is your insistence of setting a date where secondary sources note that there wasn't a clear date prior to Christianization . :bloodofox: (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The 840 date is from Tille, as you would know if you had clicked on the link I gave before deleting it. This feast occurred soon after Hálfdan became king, so it can be dated that way. Kauffner (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Then the 840 date is Till's own and needs to be presented as that. However, again, this doesn't alter at all what the other referenced secondary sources and the primary sources make perfectly clear; there was an extended period of "yule", and this appears to be connected with the solstice date, later changed with Christianization. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Rollback on Norse dwarves

Disagreement on whether an article should become a redirect to another article is not a valid use of rollback. [16] [17] Continue misuse of rollback will result in your rollback privileges being taken away. -- KTC (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no "disagreement". There's an anonymous IP reverting edits with claims of "vandalism" and refusing discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any attempt to discuss this with other user besides edit summaries, you need to use the talk page otherwise you are as much at fault as the ip user for edit warring. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 11:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second here. I've presented an argument. There's been much discussion on the talk page on both Norse dwarves and Dwarf (Germanic mythology) (the latter was even written in response to the rampant problems of the prior). Now I've told the anonymous revert to present their case—which is far more than an edit summary accusing me of "vandalism" even deserves—and you're telling me that it's perfectly fine for some anonymous IP to endlessly revert the redirect with claims of "vandalism" because I didn't make a special section addressing them? Wikipedia:Randy in Boise much? :bloodofox: (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your last edit to Talk:Norse dwarves was in July 2010, well before your first attempt in redirecting Norse dwarves to Dwarf (Germanic mythology). While I see discussion related to POV and other issues, I don't see any discussion by anyone on redircting one article to the other. If you genuinely believe Norse dwarves shouldn't exist, I would suggest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- KTC (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at Dwarf (Germanic mythology)? The talk page there? It's the same article. It's not something that shouldn't exist; it's being handled in a pan-Germanic context in an article written to WP:GA standards, thus the redirect. Before the two of you decide it's case closed and side with the anonymous IP endlessly reverting and accusing me of "vandalism", it would be wise to take a closer look. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Annabel Lee (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annabel Lee (musician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabel Lee (musician) (2 nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Troll cross

The article Troll cross has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only one source found, no others verifying it.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

My edit at Phoenix (mythology)

Sorry about my confused edit at Phoenix (mythology). Unfortunately I only had access to a Google Books snippet of Archetypes And Motifs In Folklore And Literature and I made a bad assumption. My initial concern there was this edit. Notice that the quote I used describes the anka as being from "Arabia and Turkey", does the cited source elsewhere say that the anka is Persian? Regards Paul August ☎ 12:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you see this? Paul August ☎ 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Paul, sorry for the delay. And no problem. I am under the understanding that the figure, the anka, is of Persian origin, but we should probably just stick to what the source states for now, as the article covering the anka appears to be something of a mess, something like how the Phoenix article was prior to my recent rewrite of it with sources in hand. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that the anka is Persian? As far as I can tell the cited source (p. 80) says the anka is from "Arabia and Turkey", see also this Google search. Paul August ☎ 01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Arabia and Turkey" isn't helpful—it being a geographic classification rather than linguistic—so I went with "(Persian: عنقا‎)" from the linked page to keep them in line. However, apparently the creature was assimilated with the Persian creature (see page 267 here: [18]). Is Angha a loanword into Persian from Arabic? What details do we have on this apparent assimilation? This is a ways out of my area (I only know about this being due to it apparently being the precursor of Slavic Simargl), but it's clear that the being deserves a page of its own instead of being haphazardly assimilated into the Simurgh article (itself pretty terrible). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Heathen hofs article

Hi: Dbachmann considers Heathen hofs needs a complete rewrite. I'm not entirely sure I understand the concerns he has raised on the talk page, and I have now twice removed a trivia tag, but I've left the "needs rewriting" tag in place and since you do a lot of rewrites and know the field, while I'm still quite proud of this early article of mine (although there is at least one modern source I keep meaning to set aside the time to evaluate and integrate, on the Anglo-Saxons), I think it would be best if you took a look at it and determined whether it's that deficient. See talk for further specifics including my continuing preference for that title but willingness to move it to Germanic pagan temples - for more, I am out of time right now, have to pack up at work. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. please feel free to also inform any relevant project. As you know I'm not enrolled in any :-) --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. Last time I looked the article over it was good. A quick glance tells me there's no reason for rewrite. I'll dive into this soon. Unfortunately pretty much all of the Wikipedia projects my user page bears a banner for have dried up, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize I'm not a fully dispassionate judge there. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't push it

You came extremely close to being blocked. Skating so close to WP:3RR is a really bad idea, even if you firmly believe yourself to be right.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll thank you to take veiled threats elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No veiling was involved. I'm sorry that you thought it was. Even when you are right, edit-warring is bad behaviour that leads to blocks. If you act that way again, I'll block you. I hope that's sufficiently direct for you.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If I violate policy, then you are welcome to block me. I'm well aware of policy; I've been here several years and have produced many high quality articles. I've witnessed many ridiculous ego trips and wiki-wars, this (referring to both the blocked user and your own dust-kicking) being a mere blip. Now, if you need policy advice, you're welcome to ask me, but if you just want to flash your ban badge, I'm afraid you're not welcome here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulfinch's Mythology

You have now removed an entire sourced section from this article three times. Please do not do it a fourth time as you could be blocked for edit warring. Your opposition to this section seems to be based on the fact that it consists of quotes without context, but in fact such sections are common in Wikipedia articles about books. The article must be evaluated according to the standards of Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article which specifically require such a section; by removing the section you are making the article worse, not better. Please continue to discuss at the article's talk page, and please respect consensus when it develops at that page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Three glowing, uncontextualized quotes from a few non-specialists about a Victorian general audience work on Greek mythology doesn't make a section. You're also restoring this so-called "content"; so, who exactly is "edit-warring" here? Whatever the case, please keep this discussion on the article's the talk page rather than clutter up my talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A 3RR warning on your talk page was required in case there should be need to report a fourth. In any case, the section has now been rewritten to what should be your satisfaction. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I could have given you a nice 2RR warning in response, I suppose. Anyway, like I said, the discussion was and remains ongoing on the talk page and there's no reason to bring it here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:LTA reverts

It's not you who is doing the abusing, it is the IP who opened the thread. If you look at the history of that talk page the pattern is hard to miss. This is a blocked user (see User talk:Kay Uwe Böhm) who keeps coming back and making these weirtd claims about German versions of articles. Best way to deal with long term abuse is to revert, block and ignore, that is what was intended to be conveyed by edit sumarry. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I wasn't sure what was going on. No problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexiad

Alexiad Hello Bloodofox. Do you think that this article is still lacking references and neutrality? I am thinking about removing of related tags. Your opinion will be appreciated.--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I can see that improvements have been made and I certainly thank you for the work you've put in but to avoid any issues, please see Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daniel J. Halloran III may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection? -- nah, nothing fringe there

I saw your pleas for admin intervention, and so I tried to get the three articles semi-protected (Requests for page protection), but for my troubles I got accused of "trying to preserve [articles] that [are] full of fringe theories and unsourced or badly sourced claims", and then the editor who stated that there is "nothing fringe" in the IP's edits goes on to revert the same IP's edits to the same articles as fringe theory. Sometimes you just feel like giving up, and let the lunatic fringe take over Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hrm, I just noticed that as well. Alright, time to take it up a notch then. Next time you make a move on this, just let me know and I'll step in. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 91.155.236.125 edit warring on Runes and several other pages

The IP-editor has now been blocked for 48 hours for tendentious editing, with a note that if he/she continues to push his/her fringe theories the blocks will be quickly escalating. Thomas.W (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

About "Freamunde, Portugal"

The institutional site of this parish clearly states the Suebic origin of the name ( http://www.jf-freamunde.pt/pages/display/aorigemsuevica ). Of course, there are no references (at least known by me) in English language. There is also abundant written bibliography about this and other toponyms of Germanic origin in Portugal and Galicia, mostly of the former Suebic Kingdom. Unfortunately, as the editions are always too internationally "irrelevant" and the only recognised specialist outside the Iberian Peninsula is dr. Wilhelm Reinhart, this period of history, as its influences in local culture and geography remain largely unknown outside the region itself.

As this is a mere curiosity in "Freyja"'s article, (undone by you) I hold no strong stance wether it should be kept or deleted. I will reverse your deletion, and if you disagree with this action, you can simply state it in the talk page of the article.

Have a great weekend! Ulrico Vulfe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.98.153 (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ulrico. We require an academic reference stating that this is the case. Without one, it falls under WP:OR and cannot stand. A mention of Freyja outside of Scandinavia would be of particular note (no reference is made to Freyja in any existing work), but we cannot infer such a thing ourselves here on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Braak and others

I hope you don't mind that I added to the article about the controversy over the reconstruction (and the variant date, and the ancestor-worship interpretation). But then I hit a wall in being able to access sources online ....

I find de.wikipedia has abundant information on that sort of god-image and the locations where they have been found, with de:Anthropomorphe Pfahlgötter being the overarching article, Simek having covered them broadly in Götter und Kulte der Germanen, and I see a lot of archeological work done in the GDR on the sacrificial sites that I wasn't aware of and am not finding used in English-language sources, though I have only begun to search .... so I have a stupid question. What do we call anthropomorphe Pfahlgötter in English? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! I certainly don't mind, in fact I am most welcoming of it. The more information the better. I guess we could just translate it directly; "anthropomorphic post-gods", but it might be wiser to be more neutral, i.e. something like "anthropomorphic post figures" given different interpretations. I know of similar figure in, say, ancient Greece, so perhaps we should also make the scope clear with parentheses. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of the herms. These are more sticks than posts, though; however, "stick figures" is obviously misleading, and "idols" way too broad. Hmm. Will keep hunting. (I'm thinking of adding a section of redlinks to be done to my user page in case I get long-term blocked for my recent plain speech to those who think of themselves as our bosses. That requires a title.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are herms, but there are also pole, post, or plank-like figures. As I recall, Hera was represented as such a figure in one of her earliest known incarnations in Samos; see, for example, her entry in Burkert's Greek Religion ([19]). Several works are out there discussing her representation at Samos. I am vaguely recalling something about discussion of the earliest representation of Greek deities as planks by way of some linguistic evidence, comparative work, and even attestations. It's a topic I am very interested in. I'd love to see articles handling this material. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Yule

Isn't "Yule" first attested in its earliest cognate form in the Gothic Codex Argenteus from the 4th century? I was also sure I'd read somewhere that some of the traditions connected with Yule emerged after the creation of Christmas in the 4th century, but after an exhaustive search I cannot find the source(s). Please enlighten me about any further information or corrections you may have. Regarding the Christmas article, however, I still think that the previous header "Relation to concurrent celebrations" fits better than "pre-existing pagan celebrations", because the latter doesn't specify that they occurred at the same seasonal time of the year. If you have a better suggestion for a header, please make the change.Crumpled Fire (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yule is first attested in Gothic, yes. However, it's also attested later in Old English and Old Norse. So, here we've got East Germanic, North Germanic, and, perhaps with some caveat, West Germanic represented. Orel and numerous others offer a Proto-Germanic reconstruction with solid ground but it's a question mark beyond there. This would place the event early in the Germanic record. Earlier still, the archaeological record makes it clear that practices later associated with the event reach at least back into the Bronze Age. There's no reason to suspect any particular connection between Yule and Christmas other than the latter was stamped over the former during Christianization as with so many other things. Comparatively speaking, a midwinter festival among the Germanic peoples is not surprising but expected. Given Christianity's origins as a "new religion" founded on Hellenic Judaism (and Hellenic religion(s)), similarities are going to be observed. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cease vandalism

I demand you to cease any vandalism and not to pretend I made errors or blunders in grammar. I am not a native. I have made errors in translation. It is not a reason to eliminate all my contribution without any discussion. Pure vandalism. Sincerly yours.Tranquil Pepere (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits you've added are full of grammatical issues. On top of this, you've decided to add "Morris Kline says about the mathematics provided by Hindus and Arabs [5]: It is not brillant" to the introduction. There's no need to ask if this is ideologically motivated. Expect edits such as these to be either edited beyond recognition or reverted on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Iuppiter and Tinia

The burden of sourcing is on you to show that TInia was NOT the counterpart of Iuppiter. This appears to be OR on your part, based on your own preconceptions, and not in keeping with the standard interpretations of the relation of the development of Roman religion to the Etruscan belief system. There's nothing wrong with the word "counterpart", and you can't unilaterally ban it. Before you decide I don't know what I'm talking about in regard to Roman religion and culture, you might want to check my contributions; this is not some frivolous claim based on pop-culture mythology handbooks. My sources are good: where are yours saying this identification is incorrect or ahistorical? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk to me on the talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Jupiter (mythology)

You do know you are at 4RR here, I hope. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So is your friend, Doug. Don't come to my talk page to threaten me. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

.::no, she is at 3rr but you reverted 4 times by my count - want to ask another admin? (sorry, I was logged out)) Dougweller

Uh, what are you counting? I removed some text. The text was significantly changed. I then reverted that text three times. And was it necessary for you to post on both the talk page and my user page? Or are you trying to tell me something? Please stick to one or the other. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You have removed "The Etruscan counterpart was Tinia" from the article 4 times: one, two, three, four. Please read WP:3RR which says: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." So you are currently in violation of WP:3RR. Please don't revert again. Paul August ☎ 21:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. So we're counting the initial removal of part of the original text, whenever it was added, as a revert of some editor in the past to get me to 4 RR status. And I am being warned about this on no less than two pages and by two, potentially three (whoever that IP is) administrators :bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Your removal of information reversed someone's edit, it counts. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to ask you to keep to one page with the notifications. You've just told me this in no less than 3 places. You've also been a whole lot less concerned about warning your other party, which happens to be a friend of yours. Regardless, I am done with this issue for now; the entire Jupiter article needs a restructuring and probably rewrite. It has no diachronic perspective and the primary author is comfortable with employing subjective terms. This is an issue with most of the Greek and Roman articles, unfortunately, and one that I cannot take the time to address further now. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to your denials. Your comment about warning Cynewolfe has no basis, she came to me concerned that she had hit 3RR - when someone tells me they have hit 3RR I don't turn around and warn them on their talk page - that seems pretty obvious. And since she'd told me it seemed reasonable to point out to you that you'd exceeded it. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

However, you found it appropriate to warn me here, on the talk page, and on your user page. Keep it all in one place please. Thanks. Meanwhile, the oddities of this Wikipedia policy continues: A fragment of some user's unreferenced material landed me repeated warnings at the request of an admin's friend—a friend who repeatedly remained unwarned despite comments like "read a book" ([20])—and the subjective, unexplained language continues to exist in a bad article. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Doug didn't need to warn me because I already recognized my fault, both my snarling tone and excessive reverting: that's why I was asking for his advice, which he's kindly shared on other occasions. I didn't mean to drag him into this. I was seeking a trusted voice to calm me down. I told you to read a book because that's what I felt you needed to do: you seemed to have knowledge gaps regarding scholarly consensus on this point. I appreciate your attention to Germanic religions on Wikipedia, but religions of the Greco-Roman world are far better documented than practices and beliefs among the Germanic peoples of antiquity, and whatever your methodology for keeping nonsense out of articles on Germanic religion, on this point you are simply in error and are not supported by any of the standard sources on Etruscan and Roman religion. Please accept my apology for addressing you bluntly: my impression of you over time has been that you didn't need to be treated with kid gloves, and I honestly thought that if you were told directly you didn't know what you were talking about, then you would want to remedy that situation with the sources provided. I'm sorry I misread you and made assumptions, and I apologize for dealing with your feelings so insensitively. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What an "apology". "Kid gloves", are you serious? This is what is known as a Non-apology apology. What does it do? It pushes the receiver to respond to the new barbs raised. It only furthers the dispute and contributes to its fragmentation. This is not how to build an encyclopedia, Cynwolfe.

And what's with this implication regarding Germanic religion? Tread carefully; if you were familiar with both areas, and comparative mythology and folkloristics in any broad manner, you'd find that the Germanic material, while it has its own unique problem sets, often encounters exactly the same issues as the classical material, and in fact does not suffer the huge core problem of the potential isolate status of the Etruscan script. Did you somehow miss all this conversation about sky gods and Indo-European studies? Don't continue to insult me. This isn't about my "feelings", nor is it about a supposed knowledge gap. Not once did I say scholars hadn't made this observation (it's obvious), nor that it isn't reasonable or isn't logical to use this wording. However, it's not neutral and parameters must be defined. This is about your apparent lack of understanding of what constitutes subjective versus objective, as well as your unhistorical, vacuum-like approach to this material. I won't ask if you have an academic background in classics or classical philology but I suspect not—I certainly hope not—given these issues.

My advice for you is to sit down and start considering the diachronic versus synchronic when you handle these Roman and Etruscan articles. Due to their core flaws, in time, they'll nearly all be entirely rewritten when someone else comes along with the time and effort. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was planning to drop out of this but I noticed "landed me repeated warnings at the request of an admin's friend" - now I know you've posted to my talk page so you must have read Cynwolfe's post, and nowhere does it suggest she's asking me to warn you. Could you explain to me why you've made that claim? Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's the warning for Cynwolfe's comments, Doug? And exactly why were you warning me on three separate pages? Until you want to answer that, I suggest you do drop out of this discussion. The dynamics were clear. I have little tolerance for Wikipedia buddy group politics; I'm here to write articles, not deal with this backroom dealing nonsense. If you have something to add about the article space, feel free, but otherwise this is exactly how productive users are driven away from this project. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither Cynewolfe's or Johnbod's more recent comment merits a "warning" as they weren't in danger of being blocked, and the comments weren't that dreadful. On the article talk page I was responding to your statement that you had only 3 reverts, which I think was wrong. On my talk page I wasn't even talking to you. It's uncivility that drives users away in my experience, not letting people know in an informal manner how many reverts they've made. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that this user has subsequently gone on a wikibreak. Doug, if you want to pick this up after, you're welcome to. However, given the radio silence I consider the matter dead. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laufey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High (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, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Urglaawe on Germanic Neopaganism

I am not sure why the section on Urglaawe was deleted. About 10% of The Troth's membership are members of Urglaawe kindreds, and the current Vice-Steer of The Troth is an Urglaawer. Please consider restoring the section on the page, or at least restore the original page that was taken down to merge with the Germanic Neopaganism page. Thank you. User: Verzannt; 05:21 UTC, 1 August, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verzannt (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide an academic, non-self-published source for this material, then we can include it. Please read WP:PROVEIT. Imagine what Wikipedia would be like if we didn't have this policy in place; you probably wouldn't want it to say anything about Urglaawe at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

All right... Here are some external sources.

Raven Radio Urglaawe (May 6, 2012)

Tree of Life - Heathen Perspective: Urglaawe (May 9, 2013)

Steinhauser, Phyllis. News from heathen homelands; rob schreiwer and distelfink sippschaft, Idunna #86, pp. 32-35. New Haven, CT: The Troth, 2010.

Krasskova, Galina. Northern tradition for the solitary practitioner, p. 24. Franklin Lakes, NJ: New Page Books, 2009.

Troth Elections and Officer Oaths, Robert L. Schreiwer - ::Vice-Steer, Saturday, June 1, 2013

An Urglaawe Sege was a major feature of Trothmoot 2012 and an Urglaawe Holle shrine was featured at Trothmoot 2013.

Thank you. Verzannt 22:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC).

Hello. None of these are academic sources discussing the topic. Most of these are blog posts. Self-published sources are not useful for establishing notability. Again, please present an academic source on this topic and we can talk about it. See WP:SOURCE. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I am beginning to question your neutrality, though, when you make these demands of Urglaawe while the Theodism section has no "academic" links whatsoever. Verzannt 7:31, 5 August 2013 (EDT)

The article has many issues. It needs to be entirely scrapped and rewritten. I did a quick look at it the other day, and the Urglaawe section was one of the sections I happened to notice. You can of course bring up the theodism sourcing issues on the talk page. I'd like to put some time aside to really redo the page but unfortunately I have a few other articles that need attention, like rewriting the currently abyssmal Odin article (you can see where we're at on the rewrite here). :bloodofox: (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

FWIW, I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are a number of topics relating to mythic characteristics of the stories of not only Jesus, but also Buddha, Muhammad, and other figures from the Axial Age who are in general considered to have been in some way real historic persons, but who have had their stories added to with material from other, generally preexisting, myths. The question there is, so far as I can tell, where to put them. Like I said before, I am still going through the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which does a good job covering all "religions," and which I think can serve when I am finished as at least one indicator of what material regarding what topics should go where. It may well be that such sources can be used to verify an article on "mythic elements added to the story of Jesus after the fact," or generally after the fact, which doesn't yet exist. Then again, at this point, maybe it, and the other reference sources on religion and Jesus and mythology and god knows what all else, won't themselves specifically address a topic like that above significantly enough to indicate it meets notability in its own right. At this point, like I said, I dunno. But I do hope to finish the EoR in the next month or two, and go on to creating similar lists for other highly regarded reference sources, and that might help. ALternately, maybe, if you really want an article like that suggested above now, although I hope with a shorter title? than that I suggested, maybe you could start a draft in userspace of it and then ask for input from the various relevant groups about what title might be most appropriate, if the sources themselves don't indicate one. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, John. I think that your approach is a good one and I'm willing to follow up in turn. Coming from a comparative background, I'm interested in the implications of this article. I'm wondering how much modern dialogue there is as found in M. Anthony Apodaca’s “Myth Theory, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts: Ibn Ishḥāq’s Biography of Muhammad and the Mythologizing Function of Isaiah 7.14 in Matthew 1.23” (largely viewable here). A quote:

More scholarly dialogue like this would be important for any such page, and I believe also useful for the "Christ myth theory" article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Section link please!

Don't just send people off to ANI! Then they have to read the whole thing. [21] Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dwarfs

Did you look at my rewrite of the broader article? What still needs doing/did I mess up on? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Yngvadottir, I am afraid that I still have not had a chance to sit down with this and give it a go over. I will as soon as I can. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I'm just aware this is not something where I have a good overall grasp. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory

Have a look at what your good buddy Paul did over at the Christ myth theory page.96.52.180.114 talk) 10:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Greengrounds (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ad [22]

Hello. I've partly reverted your edit. If we have etymology in Bulgarian, Russian why can't we have in other Slavic languages (like Polish) ? Besides, source provided is reliable - dictionary by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN, so I don't see the point in removing it. Greetings, Sir Lothar (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scythian religion may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

one of the most common motifs in their artwork, especially at funeral site (see, for example, the [[Pazyryk burials),

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Tilberi

You were of course correct: good thing someone just wrote Troll cat! Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, great that this is getting more attention! I always want to sit down and write (or re-write) some of these articles. They're such a joy to work on! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chol (bible), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (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) 11:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism

Hello.

I agree that Gernmanic neopaganism needs a rewrite, but no one has helped. Could you contribute? --ThorLives (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to sit down and rewrite the article. Unfortunately, I have quite a lot on my plate due to a variety of demanding outside projects. I miss being able to edit as I used to here. If some time opens up, I'll see what I can do. It's really just a matter of sticking to WP:GA criteria and having the appropriate sources at hand. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Huginn and Muninn

I see you almost immediately undid my revision today (addition of an illustration of an Anglo-Saxon brooch depicting Woden and his ravens. You requested an attribution before it could be allowed to illustrate this topic. I'm not sure how I might accomplish this without overloading the page. The iconography is very well known from numerous surviving examples (of which the illustrated brooch fragment is one of the finest) and scholarly works. Where would you like me to post some of this information? I would like to see the image returned to the page!

best, Rob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSekulovich (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. All observations and interpretations added must be sourced. If you can find an academic source making this identification, we can add it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Petty grievances

Bloodfox, since you are being so caustic in your string of comments regarding the editing of Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar, I feel I need to respond.

I did realize that "weak" and "strong" have value judgment attached to it, and I cop to the flaw. But your sort of diatribe is unwarranted. Or, in your case it's just a "warrant" you wave to justify search and seizure of everything else in the house, while shouting out in to the streets "Hey hey it's alright, I caught him in the act of Original Research ! But I've taken things under order," at passersby who might notice your removal of the kilobytes after kilobytes.

To go back to the "weak"/"strong argument", it was made clear by the "(as will be elaborated below)" declaration, that this was just an "in a nutshell" sentence, with precise description to follow. Poor choice of wording to use "rather weak" but was stumped finding a good alternative. If there was a breach you couldn't pass over, you could have replaced the tabu words or even deleted that one sentence. You cut everything else, without offering justification. As I belatedly realize, instead of struggling with an adjective, I should have paraphrased in summary their stances: "dark-dwarfs more probably than not (Lindow), black-dwarfs certainly dwarfs (Grimm, Holtsmark), whether dark- and black- are the same maybe but unknown (Shippey, Lindow)," followed by the description of arguments? Could you have worked with that?

You are totally assuming bad faith. I did websearch into the scholarship, polled and tallied up their position into a summary, fall where they may. You just didn't like how the votes were stacking up after the later precincts turned in their count. You wiped it clean in a matter of minutes after I post them, so it doesn't make the evening news. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response below. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Petty stuff redux

The first bit almost needn't be dignified with a response, but sure, "Odin's Raven-song" is a misspelling as vs. Thorpe's title "Odin's Ravens' Song", and for not being extra careful in naming sections, I plead mea culpa. But, mountains out of mole-hills. Lots of people know that galdr means magic, even lots of Japanese folks besides me. And If I may be allowed to repartee, insisting the older spelling "-galdr" over modernized "galdur" (to which Lassen has switched over, as well as other Icelanders) is itself POV because it is another way to subtly advocate the medieval origin position. But the dating of the poem, probably the heart-core of your beef with me, is a whole other thread, and your insistence at pushing your own slant on this that flies in the face of the latest scholarship should be tabled at Talk:Hrafnagaldr Óðins. Annette Lassen's edition of the poem is admittedly a recent publication, but were already arguing about it in 2011, it's about time you familiarize before going out on a reverting spree on her material. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me here. This boils down to two issues:

On the Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar article, your recent edits have introduced various issues of neutrality. If someone is airing an opinion, we explicitly attribute that opinion to that individual. We can in turn list scholars who share this opinion. We then do the same with those that agree. We may not favor one opinion over another as an editorial decision.
Hrafnagaldr Óðins is a particularly obscure and problematic text (cf. Eiríkur Hallson). As with anything else, we simply report who said what and when. Regarsing the name, as you know, galdr is improperly glossed as "song", and, indeed, may well be argued as untranslatable. We generally keep Old Norse names and titles for this very reason.

That said, you are most welcome here and are certainly doing fine work where we aren't butting heads. If you haven't already, please Wikipedia:Good article criteria. We can certainly use more able hands around here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag on Elf page

If you placed the neutrality tag on the Elf page, it's not rendering because you mistyped it. I still think you are being more incisive in your edit comments than decent behavior calls for, and I assume they are directed at me. If I wrote "Sturlason", people occasionally make typos of use bad spelling but don't deserve to be mocked at each instance. On the "primordial" sentence, not the best wording perhaps, but sought to address the following. The original "The earliest preserved descriptions of elves comes from Norse mythology" is misleading unless you note that this is a qualified use of "descriptions", i.e. erroneous unless you can demonstrate universal agreement that all of the earlier Old English material do not count as "descriptions". Perhaps that sentence could have been replaced with the following quote or used phrasing like it: "The Scandinavian tradition is even more well-attested, though not as old, and on the face of it rather different." Shippey 2004, p. 3. If you removed the sentence, that is fine with me. The "inhabit Alfheim or Yggdrasil of the World tree" bit was there before I touched the article. I didn't think there was anything to it, but I haven't double checked on this so it hadn't gone through the axing process by me. --Kiyoweap (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I did not check who added what and when. It's irrelevant to the quality of the article. The article still has major issues and needs to remain tagged for them until the issues are solved. I just snipped what I saw here and there until a larger rework arrives. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Undine

Hallo, in this edit you removed most of the content of this article (which explains why I came across it while stub-sorting), but without explaining why you were removing so much content, much of it sourced. Most of it was there when the article was moved in 2011 from Ondine (mythology) to Undine (alchemy) and there was no suggestion then that the content was inappropriate. Why did you remove so much - and should it be split into a separate article, rather than deleted? PamD 17:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. First, to be clear, most of the information was totally unsourced, and for this reason alone should be removed on sight. Beyond that, statements like "The German folktale of Ondine, a water nymph who curses her unfaithful husband to cease breathing if he should ever fall asleep again, is the basis for 'Ondine's Curse'" are flatly wrong. In line with this statement, the removed material was a big tangle of confusion. The name Undine enters the record with the pen of Paracelsus. It is thereafter a concept specific to alchemy and/or alchemically-influenced works. The subject of water beings in folklore is another matter, and the names cannot be used as synonyms if there if there is any hope for accuracy or concision for the article. As a result, I removed the offending material.:bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

block evasion in Yggdrasil?

Hello, I saw you reverting an IP at Yggdrasil. Could you tell me which is the account of the blocked user? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. This user is probably best known on the page under the name of Kay Uwe Böhm 5 (talk · contribs). He or she has used a variety of account names and IPs, which you can see a list of at [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kay Uwe Böhm]] and in act here: [23]. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Regardless of the content issue, regardless of the merits of the block, I don't think you're a prick. Have a strawberry. St Anselm (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, StAnselm. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flammenzauber

The article Flammenzauber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced music festival stub of unclear notability, tagged for references and notability since 2011

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Dialectric (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy International Men's Day!

Dear Bloodofox, I just wanted to express my wish you spent this Tuesday in a good mood! (I always imagine you as a man for some reason, so if you are a woman,please forgive me!) Whether you're female or male, I hope you spent it happy!--Miha (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thank you. I'll be a lot more active in article building come December. See you then! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yule may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

references to Yule are by way of [[Germanic_calendar#Month_names|indigenous Germanic month names]] (''Ærra Jéola'' (Before Yule) or ''Jiuli'' and ''Æftera Jéola'' (After Yule). Scholars have
as a synonym for 'feast', such as in the [[kenning]] ''hugins jól'' (Old Norse '[[Huginn]]'s Yule' > 'a raven's feast').<ref name="GUDBRAND-VIGFUSSON-326">Guðbrandur Vigfússon (1874:326).</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a false alarm, Mr. or Ms. Bot. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

World Serpent Distribution

Hi

I see my revisions of the WSD page were undone in preference older page. The information on the current page is full of misinformation and untruths regarding WSD. The company was never bankrupt and neither were any of the 3 Directors associated with it. There was never any court case either. It is a real pity that nearly 10 yeas after WSD closed down, nobody has bothered to check Companies House or the Royal Courts of Justice. WSD ceased trading in August 2004, with all stock being returned and delivered to all the artists/bands who requested it. Some chose to collect in person, some decided not to bother! For a more accurate portrayal on WSD maybe reference the following: www.headheritage.co.uk from August 30th 2004 a statement from David Tibet of Current 93. A small extract:More news on World Serpent...part 1 Aug 30, 2004, 18:37 From David Tibet at Durtro.com

World Serpent: The Carnival is Over

The past and the future

THE PAST (bad trip): As many of you may have heard by now, World Serpent Distribution have ceased trading.

Current 93 and Nurse With Wound, as well as many other groups, have worked with them almost exclusively since 1989. We felt a great closeness with all three of them: Alison Webster, David Gibson and Alan Trench, and they were both our colleagues and our friends. We are very proud of all the work we did together and the beautiful material and editions we issued with and through them. We would like to thank them for all that they have done on our behalf and wish them the best of luck with their futures, and hope we shall all keep in touch remembering the halcyon days and not the unsettled end. Also Alan Trench's interview for African Paper from March 2012 available online where he expands on the aborted legal action by douglas pearce. All i was trying to do was redress the balance, as looking at a completely inaccurate and misleading page on WSD is somewhat sad. I don't think for one minute this will make a difference but if it does then it will go someway to redressing a great injustice. They deserve better! Thanks Reiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinhardheydrich070304 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Krampus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley (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) 09:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Careful, the rules say 3 reverts within 24 hours lead to an almost automatic ban. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm aware, and it's actually anything more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I don't really care to revert again. Whether or not it gets enforced, however, apparently depends on who you know (I've witnessed some users explicitly violate it regularly, only to be defended or even de-blocked by their administrator friends). In other words, take the policy with a grain of salt, but realize that others can use it against you. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bloodofox, and happy Christmas! I do not know are you a Christian (I am not), and if you are, please do not be offended if someone like me says this to you. I also wanted to ask you something than you can likely answer with a great certainty. Be well and please answer me soon! - Val (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you. What is your question? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

An earnest thanks.

You... you are a wonder. Not only knowledgeable, but dedicated, a trait far less common, yet far more valuable. You are the reason Wikipedia is free from those who would wish to destroy it for their own enjoyment. You are the reason people can come to Wikipedia for reliable and factual information. You are a person that, despite the misinformation and clutter of the world, can be trusted to give clarity and understanding on a subject that has touched the imaginations of many. For your work on culture on the medieval peoples of northern Europe, thank you. Floatsam (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Floatsam! What a very kind thing to say to me. I appreciate that you dropped me this message and I am very glad that you enjoy the work I do here. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what Wikilove is for. I just wanted to say, since Ancient Germanic cultures are a small interest of mine, that I'm glad you're the one editing. --Floatsam (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your kind words. I have a bunch more articles here I am rewriting, but they're taking longer than expected. I hope you enjoy them. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern Scandinavian vs. Old Norse again

At AN/I, of all the places, I ran into a requested move of Draugr to Draug. It's been done; I've left a note on the talk page saying I would have objected had I known. Was this advertised anywhere you watch? I don't know how you feel about this perennial issue, whether you prefer to go case by case or in general, but I would hope it was posted to a relevant WikiProject. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the only anglicizations that one can really make an argument for are Odin, Thor, valkyrie, and Valhalla. Beyond that I think the only appropriate name for these articles is the Old Norse. I haven't seen any recent activity in this area lately. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I just left a note at the talk page of the admin who moved it, after checking the contributions of the editor who proposed the move and finding nothing whatsoever in the way of notifications. The argument being made is actually that the forms we use should be the modern continental Scandinavian ones. We started off with a lot of articles at such names because a hefty amount of original spadework was done by Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish editors. I really appreciate their work, but IMO it just isn't so that English-speaking academia uses those forms in preference to Old Norse. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ark replicas

We have a lot of articles saying this, I've done some work on them but it's obviously an NPOV violation to say there are any replicas (although that will probably be challenged). Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, no good that this is presented as a "replica" elsewhere. Hard to make a "replica" of an object described in a vague, mythological text source (i.e. nothing to replicate). I guess the only solution is to reword it when we see it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Darkwood (band)

A tag has been placed on Darkwood (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Allerseelen (band)

A tag has been placed on Allerseelen (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

CMT definition

Hoping you will support the compromise I have proposed. Radath (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Belborn

A tag has been placed on Belborn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [24]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Forseti (band)

A tag has been placed on Forseti (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Of the Wand & the Moon

A tag has been placed on Of the Wand & the Moon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mythology of the Low Countries

Given that you've now reverted me, I started a discussion on the article "Mythology of the Low Countries" at Talk:Folklore of the Low Countries. On a related note, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy for an explanation of when to delete articles. Rwenonah (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Note how consensus is needed and how there was no consensus to delete the article. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Allerseelen (band)

The article Allerseelen (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be NN.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Revisionist ranting"

In response to your claim of "revisionist ranting" on the Easter talk page what do you claim is revisionist ranting? That Ishtar and Easter are not related? That is not even debatable, it has never been held by actual linguists that they are it is a folk etymology with no support. I see there is no point however since you hawk over the page making sure only material you approve is posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.225.25 (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The comment was:

The quote conflates Old English Ēostre and Greek Éōs with Semitic Ishtar, claims that they are "completely unconnected with Easter", and then attempts to attack this conflation as a result of "a poor understanding of history and/or linguistics". Ishtar > Easter is, of course, without linguistic support. Ēostre and Éōs are different matters entirely and the article cites a variety of Indo-Europeanists making this clear. As for the rest; just nonsense. For example: synchronism happens all the time, whether certain church "historians" are prepared to admit it or not. Our current Yule-Christmas situation is another fine example. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "Easter"

I have raised on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard the question of the in albis theory of the origin of the word "Easter", to see if you are right about the English-language sources cited for its existence. Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes

The changes were made the wiki page to emphasize the anglicized version of Vafthruthnir's name. This would match other wiki entries on Norse Mythology such as the entry with Odin and the entry with Thor. The Norse version of the name was still included in the page, but seeing as this is the English wiki it seemed appropriate to make the changes that I did.

````Medwards2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medwards2015 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mėnuo Juodaragis

A tag has been placed on Mėnuo Juodaragis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Main page articles

I have found before that the featured article process, by putting style above content, can promote articles with considerable deficiencies in their content. The good article process (and I see you have a great deal of experience of that) is really intended for factual accuracy and balance but it is not a required prerequisite for FA. I think it should be. However, I do think FAC is effective at reviewing style whereas GA can be seriously flawed. Because it may only involve a single reviewer it can depend too much on that one individual. That person can be antagonistic, too friendly or simply inexperienced. How do you feel about all this? Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree! I think it's a good idea for articles to be required to first pass GA standards before being selected for FA consideration. The more eyes and hands these articles get the better, especially from those in the appropriate fields. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ancient Greek flood myths may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{refimprove}]
,<ref>Entry [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D*)wgu%2Fgios Ωγύγιος] at [[Liddell & Scott]]</ref> a mythical king of [[Attica]]. The name ''"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nothing you did wrong, just something that happened at the discussion you were part of.

I apologize Bloodofox for making you take the brunt of doing the reverts to Eric and the feedback at ANI. I was going to make a statement in the ANI, but the time I finished kneading the text, the discussion was closed.

I am thankful of Scottywong's info that Eric is a periodic fixture on noticeboard to put it all in in persepective, Indeed, search turns up a litany of Eric incidents: 1 2 3 4 5... It made me realize the other admins perhaps wanted to close the matter quickly out of jadedness more than anything.

Looks like I missed the whole ANI action by Dennis Brown against Scottywong, reports of EC getting a block on an unrelated uncivil remark, DangerousPandas unblocking, and Jimbo Wales himself weighing in on it. Anyway, I will try to continue the threads at Talk:Kelpie. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We're looking a bit þēodisc

I just realized Odin is, or was, in Category:Woden - because it's been speedy deleted and moved to Category:Wōden. There is no Category:Wōdanaz, which would make more sense and be as hard to type, and no Category:Odin. I'm going to create the latter as an obvious reader target and undelete the first as a redirect, which is what was actually asked for: at Categories for discussion/Speedy, and drop a note to the deleter that I have done so. What do you think the category should be? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right to go with the Proto-Germanic in this case.

By the way, have you seen this? I'm trying to wrap up the Prose Edda section before replacing our current Frigg article with it. I'll probably replace the article with it when I've finished the Prose Edda section. Please feel free to add or adjust as you see fit. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Frigg

added links pointing to Nanna, Gangleri, Volla, Foreknowledge and Grímnir

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Marija Gimbutas

Just a heads-up: I have partly undone an edit of yours which appears to have involved a misunderstanding of the part in question which you removed as alleged OR. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does this inappropriate category keep getting added?

See Surtr -- Because delinquents with too much time on their hands are allowed computer access when they are sitting in detention? Trilobitealive (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that category today. I'll confess I overlooked it when I reverted the stuff the sock puppet wrote in the lede. My bad. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the work you do! :bloodofox: (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Bloodofox! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Undine (alchemy). Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Please rein in your animosity and personal attacks against specific editors on the talk pages of Undine (alchemy) and Kelpie. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So you've taken the time to make this warning, yet where and what were these supposed personal attacks? As I recall, I've simply stated the obvious and I've done so without insult; it's indisputable that Corbett shows a pattern of behavior where he repeatedly insults others and then threatens to quit Wikipedia when he's threatened with a block. That is not a personal attack, that's simple fact that is perfectly visible to all users and can easily be referenced by way of his block log. In other words: don't threaten or attempt to intimidate me with a block for something I didn't do, thanks. Secondly, ignoring Corbett's own comments don't help you much—upon what was usual editing, he appeared and immediately launched into an edit war, peppered with little insults (i.e., "Let's face a few unpalatable facts here Bloodofox. The state you left the article in was an absolute disgrace; everything that's happened to it since is an improvement"—apparently unaware that I had not made the edits he was apparently looking at in the first place), ignored questions about where the patented nonsense he was adding stemmed from, and then claimed that I was "baiting" him while adding outright misinformation to the article.

No, I don't see a point to dancing around it; my time here is limited and I'll be perfectly blunt about issues I face, if perhaps only for my own posterity. Meanwhile, what was to be a little time spent editing has turned into far too much talk page time, and I've got to take a break again. So, I'll leave it to you guys to see if you can work out whether or not Paracelsus's elementals are somehow 'minor deities'... :bloodofox: (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can always start looking at these: "Eric's schoolyard potty mouth"; "So, recently Eric Corbett found this page and, unfortunately, hasn't left his old habits behind."; "his typical schoolyard insults and subsequently feign deep distress and falsely claim to be quitting Wikipedia if the slightest reprimand comes".. It seems even the Admin who chooses to offer you constant support and encouragement took the time to point out: "Insulting Eric Corbett based on your take on his history here is not going to help you make your point". SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, Eric can take care of himself and doesn't need this kind of stuff on his behalf, and Bloodofox has stated above that he's off Wikipedia for the moment. Please reread my comment at the article talk page and you'll see I pinged - and expressed disappointment in - three editors. Enough. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, as you have chosen to respond here, then I guess I'm obliged to do the same: Bloodofox requested these diffs as you can no doubt read above. I have no intention of continuing any discussion here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mjolnir

I caught wind of the edit conflict at Mjölnir. I've made some edits that hopefully make everyone happy, though I've told the other editor to take it to the talk page if they have issues. I'll keep an eye on things, and pass it on up the chain if it gets serious. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi, Bloodofox, I don't known when last you visited Negritos, I know that you have helped on that page before. I wander if you would have the time to see what an editor is busy doing with the article. Thanks, best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hel (being) renaming thread

Hi Bloodofox. I have reorganized the existing thread Talk:Hel (being)#The unbearable lightness of (being). I split off those parts of the thread pertaining specifically to the viability of calling "goddess" into a separate section, calling it /*Rename as Hel (goddess)?*/ for readability purpose.
This involved me splitting off one of your posting into two parts. I hope this is all right, short of minor tweaking. But if you don't agree it helps readability, or have some deep-set issues against this, etc., please revert, and discuss at my talk page accordingly.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kiyoweap. No problem, it looks good. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. My name is Annabeth and need your help for an edit I did on 'Loki' from the myth, that you reverted five months ago. Sorry so late, but just now I could get in the net, and saw the notification. How can I improve the article? I tried it with an analysis and some interviews with differents people with heathen tradition, and all I wrote was reverted by you. Can you guide me what is what you consider wrong on my edit, please? It was my first time in english and maybe I missed something. Thank you so much. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnabethNuñez (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Annabeth. Could you link me to the edits you are referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, again

I am so sorry, but I was off line. Here, I found them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loki&oldid=628289362&diff=prev https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loki&oldid=628291739&diff=prev

I am not pretty sure what I did wrong. I thought it was fair and had done well, no disrespect. Just trying to be a little more complete and fuller, is info I got from talks I've had with various Heathen to check data. Can you help me, please? I mean no disrespect and no missleading info. Thank you.AnnabethNuñez (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see. The reason for the removal of this text was that it violates these policies: WP:OR and WP:NPOV, particularly the first of the two. Please look these over and I think that you will see what I mean. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for that. I was unnaware of those policies, and of course I was Neutral. That was the idea. I thought that I had linked the two blogs that had source and neutral POV. May I look for that, and show it to you to know if my edit coudl be there? If not, I will accept it anyways. Thanks again, and I will take your words as law on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnabethNuñez (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use blogs as sources. We need reliable sources. In this field, this means academic sources; please see WP:SOURCE. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again and finishing this issue

As I say, I will take your words on this, and no edit anymore, or try to. I will respect you.

But anyways, I will let you the site I found. It is a 'Library' with recomendations on books titles.

http://flamehair.weebly.com/library.html

I first got the names of the books and after try to get for me to read (almost all in pdf, and others on amazon, I couldn't find a real book for my hands to taste unfortunatelly, my town is not big) So I read them and got the idea for my edit (and some sources from others wiki sources, but this was my favourite because gave me a lot of books to read) please check them and let me know if you think this are reliable sources for you. Oh, and also this:

Abram, Christopher. Myths of the Pagan North: the gods of the Norsemen (Continuum International Publishing Group: London, 2011) Colum, Padriac. Nordic Gods and Heroes (Dover Publications: New York, 1996.) Guerber, Helene A. Myths of the Norsemen (Barnes & Noble, Inc.: New York, 2006.) Sturluson, Snorri. The Prose Edda. trans. Jesse L. Byock (Penguin Classics: New York, 2006.) Unknown. The Poetic Edda. trans. Lee Hollander (University of Texas Press: Austin, 2011).

Thank you so much, and spend a nice day. I will keep watching updates on this article. Greetings

AnnabethNuñez (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR sign-up

There is a Wikipedia:JSTOR sign-up, if you have not noticed. I am not going to bother to broadcast this on multiple users or on project talk, but I'm dropping a line because I specifically recall you talking about JSTOR search, on the Kelpie talk page.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the notification! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just closed the sockpuppet investigation. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that, JamesBWatson. Bloodofox, my apologies for confusing you with the IP who has now been indeffed. That was quite a whirlwind day. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I sign off for a handful of days and come back to this bullshit? Now go back and strike through my name everywhere you accused me of being a sock puppet and I might begin to take your apology and your general behavior in some way seriously. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.65 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this. Some clown accusing me of being a sock. Nice. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ships in Norse mythology

Category:Ships in Norse mythology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page debates regarding Germanic neopaganism

Hello Bloodofox. I see that for many years you have been active over at the talk page for Germanic neopaganism. There are a number of discussions being held at that article's talk page at the moment, regarding both a potential change to the title and regarding whether certain paragraphs should be included or not. If you had the time, your input on those issues (regardless of whether you support my own positions or completely oppose them) would be useful and gratefully received. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'll take a look—thanks for the notification! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bloodofox. Recently, there was a decision made that "Heathenism (new religious movement)" would be the most appropriate term for the article, and it was changed accordingly. Acting against that, one editor unhappy with this group decision "undid" the change, reverting the page name to "Germanic neopaganism". You then made a number of small (but good) prose changes to that page, but it has since been reverted back to "Heathenry", where your changes are not in effect. If you like I can re-incorporate your changes into this page, but thought that I should alert you to this situation so that you could make the changes yourself if you prefered. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the notification. You are welcome to add the changes post-reversion. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Bloodofox, regarding the Germanic neopaganism article, I am ONLY restoring referenced material deleted by "our friend" in the past few weeks. See my comments on the article's talk page. Cheers. --ThorLives (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, bloodofox. The redirection of the Germanic neopaganism article, and the massive rewrites in the last month, seem to be the result of one individual who seeks to promote the agenda of a small American group: http://heathengods.com/what/

I have reversed many of his changes today, but please help defend the integrity of the article. Thank you --ThorLives (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

why the Thor page undo?

Saw your note on the Norse myth, it's not a new product, 1st print was 2012--I'm reading it now and the characters are fascinating--using wikipedia to validate some stuff--66.130.197.101 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Publisher needs to update their own wiki page which is out of date--66.130.197.101 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove the contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.197.101 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) --66.130.197.101 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is non-notable. Wikipedia isn't a venue for promotion. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adam and Eve

Thanks for paying attention to the use of Template:Adam and Eve. As a non-theologan, creating this new template was no small endeavor and I would appreciate any further feedback you might have on its content or use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Discussion regarding Heathenry

Hello there Bloodofox. Just to let you know, there is a Community Discussion being held here that is debating how best to deal with the problem of disruptive editing to Heathenry (new religious movement) and related articles. As a contributor to articles connected to this theme, you may be interested in offering your opinion. Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl Raschke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heavy metal and Robert Walser. 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) 10:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rooster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassell. 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, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bloodofox reported by User:CIreland (Result: ). Thank you. CIreland (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yuletide greetings

Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter. Yngvadottir (talk)

Merry Midwinter and a Wonderful Yuletide to you, Yngvadottir! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Massacre of Verden

Hi BF, help me understand why you reverted my edits to this article which I was attempting to improve with a) more accurate translation (e.g. Blutgericht does not mean "bloodbath" or "massacre") and b) some restructuring in preparation for adding more factual historical information from German Wikipedia. Normally it's good to discuss these things. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! We go by common usage on Wikipedia and only translate directly if there is some other issue. Further, the English article is completely cited to reliable sources. The lead is a summary of the contents of the article. Unfortunately, the German article is in a comparatively poor state. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Bigfoot

I see you noticed that article has grown into a gigantic mess. A single editor, over the course of thousands of edits, ballooned the article into what it is now which has over 500 refs and a bibliography that dwarfs every other article I've ever seen. It needs immense pruning which honestly is beyond my editing skill. I'm okay with adding things here and there and reffing them but a full tear down and rewrite I think I'd make a mess of. I also kind of feel bad because the user in question put in a ton of GF effort into the expansion no matter how misdirected that effort was. It's massively excessive though. I posted over at FTN as well to try to bring some eyes to it. Point being I'd like to help getting it back to a manageable article. If you're interested I'm going to start on the TP and try come up with a reasonable structure for the article at some point this weekend, don't have much more time tonight. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I agree that we should just completely start over. I think that we need to stick to articles in the area of folkloristics at the risk of falling into the emic rather than remaining in the etic. I'll give it some thought. I'd be glad to start digging up sources with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR on Carl Raschke

WP:3RR is a Bright Line. "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.". You have been around long enough. Pursue it in talk, please. Edit warring will often lead to a wp:block Jim1138 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a WP:LIVING page. If we were restricted by WP:3RR on living people pages, we'd have a big mess on our hands. If you want to help out, you are of course welcome to. So far, there's been no attempt to reign in the nonsense going on there. Just take a look at the talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of that content does not fall under WP:NOT3RR. 3RR is 3RR. Take it to WP:BLPN if you are so concerned. Revert again and you will likely be wp:blocked Jim1138 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl Raschke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Latham. 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) 09:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Raschke

Dear bloodofox. We do wish you would live up to the proud Germanic traditions in which you espouse and either come clean and present your-real-self for civilized debate or viciously stop editing Carl Raschke's Wikipedia page. We are more than willing to have a face-to-face conversation about this. I don't think you would like someone editing your Wikipedia entry. What you are doing is bullying. One sentence for Painted Black is enough commentary on a book which you obviously did not enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duikelmaan (talk • contribs) 07:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. They want you to viciously stop editing the page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah—if you've got some time, take a look at the Carl Raschke page sometime. This seems to have occurred after Raschke himself made some comments on Twitter (username @carlraschke). :bloodofox: (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, thanks, got my own pages to protect from my own hordes of crazy people, you know how it is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, so passes another Wiki-day. Keep fighting the good fight, Hypnotoad! :bloodofox: (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems Raschke is embarrassed about the stupidity of his youth, though. That's good. Seems also that the second rate sociology brigade in the USA is mounting a concerted effort in academia to bring back SRA credibility. That's bad. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You might be right. However, a lot of the recent comments on Raschke's legacy cited in Raschke's article here are pretty recent, so I imagine any attempt to revive some kind of SRA part II is likely to at least meet more academic resistance this time. Fortunately Wikipedia also exists now! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Total Awewsomeness

Here is a cookie. I saw nothing was on ur Talk page, so, i wanted to put something on B) Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are going to end up blocked if you continue to edit war over these articles. You do not get to circumvent the deletion process by pretending an article isn't sourced, when it clearly is. If the sources aren't good enough, then you can easily explain why in an AfD nomination and get consensus for deleting it. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

AFD isn't necessary for an obvious redirect. And, lol, sourced? Have you LOOKED at the sources? Go and find some reliable sources and we can talk. We have WP:PROVEIT for a reason. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent news, then you can take it to AfD and nobody will argue for keeping the article. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We're free to produce redirects but you're not free to restore totally unsourced content, as I outline above. Now, as you know one of the article contains no source whatsoever whereas the other has zero reliable sources—and you're edit warring to keep that? Taking some frustration out on Wikipedia or what? :bloodofox: (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cryptozoology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. 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) 10:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring on cryptozoology

Hello. I see that you seem to be involved in an edit-war at cryptozoology, where you are reverting the contributions of several other editors repeatedly. You've probably crossed the three-revert line, and you're definitely well over the line in the more general category of inappropriate edit-warring. I know you're aware of this, because it appears you've been warned already and removed the warning (and are accusing others of edit-warring on the talk page).

I would like de-escalate this conflict and return the editing environment to a more productive state. In light of your edit-warring, I'm going to ask you to commit to not editing the article for 1 week, during which time you can discuss with other editors on the talk page and try to come to some sort of consensus, rather than trying to ram your preferred text down everyone else's throat by brute force. Alternately, if you're unwilling to do that, I will most likely block your account temporarily, given your breach of the edit-warring policy. You can let me know by responding here - I will watchlist your talkpage. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? It's insulting that you're willing to come here and flash your block-badge without bothering to even follow the edits on the page. The edit wars from all parties appear to have ended and now you're here stirring things up? Regular editing and discussion already has resumed among editors. And while I'm the only user you're threatening, I was obviously not the only user making reverts, as you'll find if you bothered to go through the edit history of the page—specifically Jess (talk · contribs) [25], [26], [27]—and Jess's version is the version that is there—problems and all, so much for "ram[ming]" (!). Recently I also had a wikistalker and was harassed by half a dozen sock puppets trying everything they could to "out me"—now where were you for that?

Yeah, editing with back-and-forth reversions sucks and is a mess, but for those of us actually editing article spaces and producing content, it's unfortunately inevitable given Wikipedia's aging editing system. I'd love to know how to avoid entirely but the revert-discuss cycle seems to be very limited in actually getting anyone to edit article space. In addition, had you read the history of the article before you came here to threaten me, you'd find that I've recently added quite a lot to the article that has been by no means contested—all from secondary academic sources. I am in fact the only user involved contributing to the article space at the moment. Want to help at the article?

In short, I'll thank you in the future to actually follow what is going on at an article before you come to a talk page and threaten a user. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will keep an eye on the article and decide how to proceed. MastCell ^Talk 01:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Family tree of the Norse gods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Family tree of the Norse gods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Norse gods until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Good move. I've responded there. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

cryptozoology on wikiepdia

Hi, I do not consider that a Twitter profile through which I am debunking issues related to cryptozoology is a valid reason to remove my paper from wikipedia quotes.

Giles reference is incomplete

I noticed the Giles reference after I had added the one below at the top of the Ēostre page. It appears to be incomplete since there is more than one volume in Giles' work. Only the historical works appear to have be translated. see Bede; Giles, John Allen (1843). Complete Works of Venerable Bede. Vol. VI. p. 178. --Jbergquist (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Just as a heads up, the reference you added was removed because it was added to the lead section. On Wikipedia, lead sections are summaries of the articles that they precede. As a result, references are usually kept out of the lead section because they are found in the body. For more information, see WP:LEAD. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The link is now in the talk page for the article. I came upon Ēostre, the goddess, while trying to document the name of the Esterling penny for the sterling silver article (see talk). It appears to be Anglo-Saxon but Ēostre may date from the Bronze Age. Grimm says there were annual spring fire festivals and bonfires are also associated with the Slavic goddess Kostr, see Kostroma, suggesting an "ostr" proto-Indo-European root. The Persion Adar or Athar is also associated with fire. The people of the Nordic Bronze Age were probably Sun worshipers. --Jbergquist (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"supper per nom"

Deliberate levity? Or editing hungry? Awien (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hard to say—possibly also my frenemy autocorrect! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bloodofox reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: ). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster

You broke 3RR on this page (any edit that undoes the work of others is a revert, so yes, the fourth edit was a revert) but as the dispute is now two days old and you haven't even edited since then, I'm leaving it at a warning. You're expected to discuss instead of edit war, even if you think you're right. --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Talk:Norse cosmology. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're wondering what an example of this looks like, you might consider your wholesale erasing of sections at Ratatoskr regardless of the citations. You seem to apply an unusually high standard of citation there compared to elsewhere. Thmazing (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke or plain old trolling? Did either of you clowns bother to look at: a.) what was being reverted and b.) this admin board discussion about those edits? I suggest both of you goofballs go find something better to do after you've brushed up on basic Wikipedia policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Nehalennia

Why did you delete all of my additions? The journal was published by the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. If you say that is fringe unworthy of publication you're saying Dutch archeology is fringe as a whole. Numerous Dutch archeologists and linguists have supported a Belgian language and/or Nordwestblock hypothesis. Either way, you are free to add different theories. Why delete it all instead? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

First, I didn't delete all of your additions. Second, I started a thread at Talk:Nehalennia yesterday. Let's keep the discussion in one place. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Cryptids

Hi, Why did you remove my two Bigfoots from cryptids? Woodwose is an Wikipedia article so it should be added User:Davidgoodheart Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Hi, Sorry my mistake, the Wikipedia article woodwose in not about the article about the Bigfoot that lives in Europe. That article does not yet exist.

User:Davidgoodheart Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Please refrain from adding material to Wikipedia without a reliable reference. In the case pseudoscience like cryptozoology, a secondary source will be required—i.e., a non-cryptozoologist. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"Typical trolling and Corbett apologetics from Sagaciousphil"

I'd like you you to explain this comment before taking the issue to ANI. Eric Corbett 20:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

lol. Is this some of that "idiocy" you were talking about? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We'll see you at ANI then. Eric Corbett 20:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, you might consider going for a walk in the park rather than getting your personal frustration out via petty insults aimed at anonymous users on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I might consider all sorts of things, but one of them would not be kowtowing to you. Eric Corbett 20:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No need for the theatrics—getting some fresh air can help anyone. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged pro-Clinton editing

Your talk page comments are not well-advised and I suggest you remove them. Any allegations against other editors should be taken to the appropriate noticeboards. And they require evidence, not speculation. It does not matter whether you are right or wrong, but whether you can prove it. TFD (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't be removing them. The page has serious problems that need to be addressed and Clinton Campaign-related entities are well known to operate in social media spaces (ref example provided in post). If not then it's just a bias issue. No one was directly named, not was anyone outed. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cryptowhales

Voila. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The section was added that recently? That's depressing. Most of this stuff seems to have been a product of several years ago. Thanks for catching that reference I missed, btw. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Oh, I wasn't thinking of you having missed something; I started browsing because I couldn't find the Eberhart you mentioned; must have been removed earlier. I found the system of documentation confusing, BTW, esp. for a GA. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think what struck me, when I saw your edit go by, was the name--there was an Ebrard, a hardcore Protestant scholar German scholar who in the late nineteenth century argued that Boniface had destroyed a "pure" Christianity founded in Germany by Celtic missionaries. Later Nazi scholars relished in that (impossible and debunked) idea. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha, and it all comes full circle! :) That's pretty interesting, actually. I'd like to read more about it—have you considered adding it to the Donar's Oak article? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Folkvangr vs Sessrumnir

Thanks for the helpful information in your edit summary on Odin. I clearly haven't been reading Norse myth extensively enough, as the sources I had read up to this point described Folkvangr itself as the counterpart to Valhalla. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey! No problem. There's been some recent work on this topic that needs to be on the articles as well. I'll add that to my list of Wiki-dos. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the distinction between hall/location that you mentioned based on etymology, sources explicitly describing Folkvangr as a general area as opposed to a specific structure, or a combination of the two? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a fairly recent article discussing the matter: [28]. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Waitoreke

The creature hasn't been identified, but as it may be or have been real, it shouldn't be relegated to folkloric creatures. Cryptozoology is the study of those creatures not absolutely proven to be either real or fictional, or mystery creatures waiting to be identified by science. I think the category fits. Katharineamy (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. It's not biology and it's not zoology. It is not the study of entities from folklore, which is an aspect of folkloristics. Please choose another category. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you insist, I've moved to the parent category, but I don't see why this should not be in Mammal cryptids and, for example, Kting voar is. Katharineamy (talk)

This is because no one has gotten to removing Kting voar yet. Right now we have a big problem with cryptozoology all over Wikipedia. Several years ago they were essentially allowed to cryptoozology-ify the site unchecked, labeling every critter or entity in the folklore record they could find on the site as a "cryptid". They did this with many, many articles, turning the site into something of a cryptozoology database. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've since removed the drive-by cryptozoology tagging over at Kting voar, btw. There are still hundreds of articles left. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Folkvangr vs Sessrumnir

Thanks for the helpful information in your edit summary on Odin. I clearly haven't been reading Norse myth extensively enough, as the sources I had read up to this point described Folkvangr itself as the counterpart to Valhalla. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey! No problem. There's been some recent work on this topic that needs to be on the articles as well. I'll add that to my list of Wiki-dos. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the distinction between hall/location that you mentioned based on etymology, sources explicitly describing Folkvangr as a general area as opposed to a specific structure, or a combination of the two? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a fairly recent article discussing the matter: [29]. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Waitoreke

The creature hasn't been identified, but as it may be or have been real, it shouldn't be relegated to folkloric creatures. Cryptozoology is the study of those creatures not absolutely proven to be either real or fictional, or mystery creatures waiting to be identified by science. I think the category fits. Katharineamy (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. It's not biology and it's not zoology. It is not the study of entities from folklore, which is an aspect of folkloristics. Please choose another category. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you insist, I've moved to the parent category, but I don't see why this should not be in Mammal cryptids and, for example, Kting voar is. Katharineamy (talk)

This is because no one has gotten to removing Kting voar yet. Right now we have a big problem with cryptozoology all over Wikipedia. Several years ago they were essentially allowed to cryptoozology-ify the site unchecked, labeling every critter or entity in the folklore record they could find on the site as a "cryptid". They did this with many, many articles, turning the site into something of a cryptozoology database. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've since removed the drive-by cryptozoology tagging over at Kting voar, btw. There are still hundreds of articles left. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved from fringe/noticeboard to wt:fringe

Hello Bloodofox,

A group of editors decided to move the discussion on fringe 'rename/overhaul' to WT:FRINGE. In the process, I copied one of your comments. Please let me know if this is a problem. Thanks. JerryRussell (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Letting you know ...

I gave Ginnungagap a good shake and removed the rewrite tag. You may want to check my work and possibly make the referencing scheme more consistent.

In the course of explaining Dronke's theory I ran into the fact that the Muspell and Múspell redirects had both been repointed to Muspilli. I wouldn't have located our article at Muspelheim, but that is definitely where those should point, however indubitable the etymological theory is, and I'm wondering whether there's anything else in that area that should be cleaned up. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, that's a big improvement. Yeah, that's one of those area that needs some disentangling. I rewrote a lot of our Norse cosmology articles but there's still a lot to do there. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding req.attention to edits. The thread is Editor on a mission: folkloristics vs cryptozoology. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing personal

Hi Bloodofox. I just wanted to say hello and let you know that I don't mean anything personal against you and I appreciate your graceful and attentive reaction to the problems that I have been having to your editing. Sending you this peace dove because you deserve it.

TeeVeeed (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hello TeeVeeed and thank you. Here's to working out our differences and editing together in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE

[30]

In light of the above unsigned comment from User:Volunteer Marek, I thought you might find this talk page interesting. SashiRolls (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Business as usual on these articles, I see. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bloodofox. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Odin

Greetings, I just wanted to say that I am unsure why you reverted my edit to the Odin page. While I am not an expert of this subject area, I spent a bit of time researching that image and thought that the source I cited looked reliable. I don't understand why you thought that my adding this cited information was not neutral. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Morgan, thanks for getting in contact with me. Please see the Odin article talk page for my rationale. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox mythical creature, reported field

Why wasn't the Template documentation for the field change made at the time? I spent an hour in puzzlement trying to understand why the field wasn't working.--Kintpuash (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates can definitely be confusing on Wikipedia. The template documentation definitely needs some updates and I'd argue that the template itself needs to serious reconsideration. As it stands, it promotes some bad practice and attempts to squeeze every entity out there into some kind of 'creature' category. Maybe the solution would be to create more templates. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Good Yule!

Looking to the sunrise. Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter, and success in the new year. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I wish you the same, Yngvadottir! :bloodofox: (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yule infobox

Hi, I saw your edit on Yule. I think the template pulls info from the page's Wikidata entry. If you copy-paste the template with Yule's parameters on the Samhain page and preview the edit, it'll say October 31 and November 1, same as Samhain's Wikidata page. Daß Wölf 17:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Triquetra problems

I'm kind of less involved on that article now, but you might want to see Talk:IX monogram... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake reference

Does seem to be - I've been digging about for it in vain, and left a note with the user who added it. Should have twigged. Getting' old.... Haploidavey (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey there—I found it, actually. At first it looked fake (there's no such mention of childbirth and Valhalla) but check out my comments not the Valhalla talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

question

why haven't you gotten a message science 2009? L.S. inc. (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont follow. Care to rephrase that? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Odin

Hello, I've added several additional Germanic names for Odin to the article. They were deleted bacause the head section is apperently not the right place to do that. Thats fine, but is it okay if I add the information again, but this time in the Etymology section? Cheers :) DaMatriX 15:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! The etymology section would be the appropriate place for that, but please keep in mind that the material needs to be solidly sourced. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Globsters

Darren Naish has a book coming out called Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths[31] which is already on GBooks in preview. Thought you might be interested as you edited Trunko. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doug, thanks for the heads up. It looks like Naish is an interesting case. I'll keep an eye out. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

AfD:Godwulf

I note from the article history that you have twice reverted attempts to convert the article Godwulf into a redirect. Since you might then be considered an 'involved' editor, I am notifying you that I have initiated an AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwulf. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Vegvísir

Unfortunately, I failed to add the Vegvisir page to my "watching" list.

I am astounded that all the correct information I added and all the poor and incorrect information I removed has been completely trashed. "Flowers" is not a good reference, his translation is incorrect. The Huld manuscript is not the only manuscript it exists in, and certainly is not from 1880. I see no reason why the Björk and Skyrim references were removed, nor references to my source research pages.

I will reverted this page to my last version. If you object to this, please let's discuss it.

Justin F (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I've again reverted your adjustments ([32]). You're responsible for sourcing material you add. Adding a random "Foster (2015)" with no referent helps no one. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

But the references do link to the source pages - for the translation quote and all the other information, they are both on my web page and the academic paper I've written The paper gives the full translation of Huld manuscript. Why did you just go reversing it? I will put it back. If anything, I can somehow expand the reference to give the titles of the web page and the paper? Would that satisfy you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galdrastafir.sigil (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I can add my full name - would that satisfy the requirements? ~ Justin Foster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galdrastafir.sigil (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I presume you're referring to this article: [33]. Did this appear in a publication? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes - I have made the paper available free to download online. Does this not make it a publication? Prior to this it was reviewed and edited by qualified people, including staff of the Árni Magnússom Institute. No, it has not appeared in any other publication. It has been referred to and appeared in the bibliographies of two books available for sale. It has been read by over 12,000 people.

I am regarded as the leading world expert on this subject, certainly in the English-speaking world. I still don't understand your problem with me, and I find that very frustrating.

Hello. Please read WP:PROVEIT, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. For something like this, we need a published source, not a self-published item, and preferably an item that has gone through peer review or that has been published via an academic press. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bloodofox, @Galdrastafir.sigil: I'm going to butt in here because this is a bit of an unusual situation. We're only citing Flowers right now, and one of the two books referring to the Foster paper appears to be a 2016 book of his: see this search within. Someone should also check whether there are any relevant changes in the 2011 edition of his Galdrabók, but I believe that would be too early to have made use of Foster's work; what is the other book that cites it? It's an obvious conflict of interest to add a reference to your own work, and normally we would indeed require the article to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but since Flowers endorses it, it seems to me it should be possible to add a summary of what it says about the use of this sigil, and although the recent Flowers book is less scholarly, we may be able to cite the two together since the article rests on Flowers' interpretation anyway. In addition, we should correct Geir Vigfússon's patronymic and the year, 1860, based on this page on the manuscript that we already have as an external link. ... And I made a Commons category for the symbol, given the additional images now there :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bloodofox, Thankyou @Yngvadottir:,

My paper is also referenced in Icelandic Magic - Aims, Tools and Techniques of the Icelandic Sorcerers by Christopher Alan Smith. Avalonia, 2015. ISBN 1905297939, 9781905297931 [34] My paper has also been reviewed by Magnús Rafnsson, author of Rún galdrabók and Tvær galdraskræður [35] and Adalheiður Guðmundsdóttir from the University of Iceland, who tought a course on the History of Magic in the Department of Folkloristics (http://uni.hi.is/adalh/kennsla/galdrar-a-islandi/).

I have spoken to Steven Flowers. For a short time, he considered co-authoring his latest book on the subject with me. As it turned out, he did not. In the end, he published and continued his trend of heavily biased writing toward his main area of interest: Troth and other pagan Germanic lifestyles. After publication, he agreed that he should not have published his Icelandic Magic under his "Stephen E. Flowers, PhD" title rather than his "Edred Thorsson" name. Further, in his earlier books, Flowers had never seen the Huld manuscript, nor based his translation on it. Instead, his only source at the time was the 1903 German essay by Ólafur Davíðsson, Isländische Zauberzeichen und Zauberbücher (which by the way I have also translated into English and made available) [36]. Thus, his translation while being generally close to what the Vegvísir title and purpose are, still lacks in accuracy. Even I have since updated my translation, changing the words "...this symbol..." into "...these staves...". The word "staves" is now the commonly accepted word given to these magic symbols (sigils), being the more accurate translation of "Stafir" (sing. "Stafur"). I will be publishing my new edition soon and in the meantime, it has the correction on my web site [37]

Finally, I want to reinclude the cultural aspects referring to Björk and Skyrim. For Björk there are many links showing her tattoo of Vegvísir, including two of her at the tattoo parlour getting it done. Similarly, there are numerous links, including the official Skyrim site, that shows their rendition of the Vegvísir stave.

A Bit Overkill Stance on Cryptozoology?

Note: the into is a bit redundant, but please read the whole thing; I can assure you it is not exactly what you expect

While I agree with you removing Cryptozoological content that overshadows mainstream/scientific views, I completely disagree with the assertion of completely removing all content pertaining to Cryptozoology for WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:UNDUE.

The text for WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE include: "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked."

From that, we see "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included."

This segment of the policy clearly indicates that pseudoscientific views are allowed on articles, so long as they do not receive undue weight, are clearly identified as pseudoscientific, and have an explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories. There are some folklore entities that include sources for all three of these points; including how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories on individual folklore creatures.

I personally do not believe in Cryptozoology, though I am against total censorship of ideologies. My main concern with your edits is not the removal of pseudoscience from Legendary Creature pages, rather you erroneously implying the Cryptozoology contradicts or contrast with folkloristics. First of all, I do not see how that could even be possible in folkloristics. Folkloristics is the study of folklore and how it affects society. Cryptozoology is simply an instance of folklore affecting society, as is religion. Folkloristics is not an analytical science; it has absolutely no regard for the possibility of folklore being real or not, rather it analyses folklore and its effects. For example, folkloristic have little regard to whether Oden or Valhalla was real or not; they don't go around telling believers they are false. Thus Cryptozoology cannot be "derived from folklore." In fact, the only concepts that are actually derived from folklore are fictional characters, such as J. R. Tolkien's work. In today's Featured Article Vampire (one of few times a Legendary Creature has been promoted), it states in the first sentence of the third paragraph "although belief in similar vampiric creatures such as the chupacabra still persists in some cultures". One of those "cultures" is Cryptozoology. On the Reception section of the page of Cryptozoology, folklorists are analyzing it as folklore affecting society, as how folkloristics dictates. One such case includes "The psychological significance of cryptozoology in the modern world .. serves to channel guilt over the decimation of species and destruction of the natural habitat; to recapture a sense of mysticism and danger in a world now perceived as fully charted and over-explored; and to articulate resentment of and defiance against a scientific community perceived as monopolising the pool of culturally acceptable beliefs".

Before any of this pseudoscience total-censorship nonsense because Cryptozoology (somehow) contrasts with folkoristics, I was a huge fan of you Indo-European articles, and thought you did a good providing cultural links through your works with linguistics and mythology connecting-the-links between the diverse peoples of the Indo-European sphere. In grade school, a group of friends and I would spend hours reading and discussing pages you frequently edited. I even used your runic swastika images for a school protect before my parents told me it wasn't a good idea and to remove it. One day they may be censored if deemed inappropriate by a consensus of people. This whole controversy was a bit of a shock to me, especially coming for someone I was a childhood fan of. I have noticed you have abandoned the Indo-European stance and your whole account has a much grimmer undertone than it used to.

With the utmost respect, I requested your permission to add at least some Cryptozoological content to only thepages that have all of the three criteria above. The information will only be a few sentences to a paragraph long, with little focus of psuedoscientific ideology, just so it does not get totally censored from pages.

Best regards,

The Soldier of Peace (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. First, I'm glad to hear that you've found my work here useful. That's exactly why I do it. While I haven't had much time for it lately, there's much more work to do here.

Regarding the topic of cryptozoology: I'm not sure how long you've followed this issue. Before I raised the issue (and re-raised it), cryptozoology dominated much of our coverage of folklore. This is due to a dearth of folklorists involved with the project.

While articles like Bigfoot and chupacabra deserve sections dedicated to their magnetic attraction to cryptozoologists, placing them in most articles is very much WP:UNDUE. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Mythica: contentious source

Remember https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=367663107#Unreliable_source_alert:_.22Encyclopedia_Mythica.22_.28pantheon.org.29 ? Here are some reliable sources that affirm it is a reliable source:

https://library.marylhurst.edu/research/databases-by-subject/english-literature-and-writing/
https://www.sac.edu/Library/Pages/Literature.aspx
http://msmelo.squarespace.com/english/
https://www.nhcc.edu/student-resources/library/internet-resources/literature
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Atalanta (mireu la secció External links)
http://aub.edu.lb.libguides.com/c.php?g=276459&p=1843482
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL3666868M/The_encyclopedia_mythica (una revista d'avaluació de fonts...)
http://www2.suffolk.edu/files/SawLib_Research_LitArtHum/mythologyguide.pdf
http://www.ipl.org/IPL/Display?key=res:ipl-5935&layout=blank (ipl2: Information you can "trust" (?))

Message from Hienafant--Hienafant (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This source is demonstrably terrible. It's inaccurate at every turn, at times inventing deities. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of, say, ancient Germanic studies can tell you the same (here's even a link to John Lindow complaining about its lack of accuracy way back in 2001). So what are you getting at? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to get at critical thinking over contradictory proofs. I am on my right to question and demand evidence, am I not?

I thought you were probably right from the beginning... and you are.

Thanks for your attention.--Hienafant (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem :bloodofox: (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Lost of names of Freyja listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lost of names of Freyja. Since you had some involvement with the Lost of names of Freyja redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

American Folklore is apparently an academic site

Hello Bloodofox,

I would just like to inform you American Folklore is an academic site; according to its "about" page, it was created as a graduate study.

"Sandy is the webmaster and writer of an award-winning, internationally-known web site called American Folklore (http://www.americanfolklore.net) that features retellings of folktales from each state. This site was created as part of a graduate study at Rutgers the State University of New Jersey in October 1997 and is used daily by teachers throughout the world in lesson plans for students of all levels. Stories from the site have also been used in college text books and in Masters level programs."^[1]

Just wanted your input on this, as I have noticed you have created quite exceptional contributions since we last talked, and this was one of a few that I had some uncertainty with.

Best Regards,

The Soldier of Peace (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your kind words regarding my contributions. As for the site, the claim that the site is "academic" is quite a stretch. Note that Schlosser does not provide any concrete details about the site's use. More revealingly, she does not point to any associations with any academic institutions, and she appears to have no formal background in folkloristics. What's happening here is product-hawking: Schlosser is promoting her very un-academic books. If the author's claim that site has indeed been used here or there, that's a shame, but it has no bearing on our need for reliable sources. In the past we've even blacklisted comparably poor and blatantly commercial "resources", such as Encyclopedia Mythica. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it seems reasonable to remove this information, as it appears there is little evidence to support the site's claim that it is an academic source. I agree with you. The Soldier of Peace (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Halloween

Regarding your post at Talk:Halloween#Primary Sources: if you still have some interest in this topic, you might drop in at the talk page and catch up on the current discussion. I would be interested in your take on it. Ping me from here if you respond. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll take a look. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Greetings:
I'd like to ask that you step away from this article for a bit and allow others to weigh in. My most recent change is quite accurate. Especially given that even the listed references comment that it's the person, and not the practice, that determines the scientific level. Intentionally posting just the most extreme of the practice violates the foundation of neutrality that Wikipedia depends on. Thank you. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not happening. Use the talk page. Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your bias is noted. As is the pure disregard for neutrality in your effort to push your personal point of view. From the article's reference is "Cryptozoology has acquired a bad reputation as a pseudoscience... Until detailed, methodical research becomes standard practice among cryptozoologists, the field will remain disrespected by more traditional biologists and zoologists." but I'll expect to see that removed as well shortly since it doesn't fit your vision? I'll remind you o came to that page from a page on a recently rediscovered insect. I'm not seeing how even when Wikipedia's mediation puts this as a higher class, as my post did, you continue to post a false meaning. Crypto is hidden (unfound, missing, etc). The fact that a few off hand papers and a book lump the entire field in the trash because the few happened to be the loudest. I don't see the pseudoscience tag on every religion page. Or on the "global warming" page despite them using far less scientific data in their studies. You ignore the many many of the majority who are more often looking for causality links between legend and fact, eschewing them and their work to focus on a single listing of dinosaur hunters. Who until I read this article I have never heard linked to cryptozoology. Lostinlodos (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

also as that may have come off more confrontational than my personal intention; my point is the term pseudoscience is thrown about so poorly as a description for anything that 51% or more people don't agree with... or even fewer. I push you to be cautious. Cryptozoology has a very long history. Thousands of books, millions of published works. High profile cryptozoologists have found many previously thought extinct animal and plant populations alive and well, not because of a lack of scientific method but because they don't give up in the face of lacking evidence. I also see no reason that current studies not be included. The search for the dodo, the Tanzanian tiger, megaladon etc are well financed, spearheaded by cryptozoologists, and well documented to even including BBC and Discovery, as well as National Geographic. There's for more room in this topic for rational discussion and inform than opening with the incorrect sense that someone is looking for dinosaurs and thus all cryptozoology is pseudoscience Lostinlodos (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"North Germanic religion"

Hello Bloodofox. Just noticed that you renamed "Norse religion" to "North Germanic religion". Now I'm not defending the original "Norse religion" (because I think it needs changing) but I'm really not convinced by "North Germanic religion"; do you have any WP:Reliable sources that use that term specifically? If not, then wouldn't the move be akin to WP:Original research? It seems to me that the most widely used term among academic specialists at present is "Old Norse religion", perhaps followed by "Norse paganism". I am considering putting in a requested move on the matter and wanted to check with you first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. As the articles covers the religion of the North Germanic peoples, I'd say it's a pretty uncontroversial move. Unless the article is expected to stick to the Old Norse period and ignore the Proto-Norse and post-Christianization references, North Germanic religion seems to be the best movie. Maybe even North Germanic paganism to exclude regional-specific developments in Scandinavian Christianity. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This would still be original research though; or perhaps an original synthesis. We have to follow the reliable sources and use the terms that they use, even if we feel that we can develop more accurate terms. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's an original research issue here. If our scope is religion among the North Germanic peoples within that range, there's not much else we can call it. A quick Google Books search reveals use of variations of the phrase under similar to identical contexts. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Harby figurine and horse rider pendant

The Harby figurine seems to be wearing a sleeveless apron which is embroidered over the top of a dress. The top half of the dress is sleeveless with a plunging neckline and big arm openings, whilst the bottom half of the dress comprises a pleated skirt. The horse rider equipped with sword and winged cavalry spear seems to be wearing baggy breeches. PetersMum (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Höðr

And how is it not clear? As long as I know in both Prose Edda and Poetic Edda, he has been mentioned as a son of Frigg. I'd be glad if you could explain what you meant more specifically. Keivan.f^Talk 04:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Höðr is described as Baldr's brother, but not specifically as Frigg's son. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New European Recordings

The article New European Recordings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Massacre of Verdun

How is "for their role in a revolt which killed several of his nobles" not consistent with every source cited in the article? Srnec (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That’s in line with the revised annals. Nobles aren’t mentioned in the earlier source. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure they are. The two envoys mentioned by Einhard are named in the earlier annals, Adalgis and Gailo. Srnec (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Shall I restore the deleted clause? Srnec (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't have access to the source at the moment (in transit). However, "for their role in a revolt which killed several of his nobles" implies that the massacre was a result of this rather than, say, the act of rebelling or whatever else was involved. It's not neutral. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The disputed clause says they were killed "for their role in a revolt". There is no doubt about that, is there? The subclause "which killed several of his nobles" is meant to indicate what is particular about this revolt that led to such vengeance. As a mere fact, it is not in dispute. Its relevance is argued by Nelson, as quoted in the article. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nine Worlds

Template:Nine Worlds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bloodofox. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bigfoot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesus in comparative mythology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Nain Rouge

Please note, I have cleaned the article considerably. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep up the great work, LuckyLouie! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

Just curious, why did you rollback all my edits involving the "Germanic Paganism" template? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

And, for that matter, every instance of the template itself? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Please see my comments on the template’s talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rán, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nine Daughters of Ægir and Rán, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp

Local legend was being given credibility as a cryptozoological creature. My copyedit trimmed UNDUE weight on sensational coverage. Folklorist eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up — I didn't have this one on my watchlist. Your edits look great and I've made a few here and there to follow up on them. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And here's another one for you: Thetis Lake Monster. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: — excellent, looks great! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Folklorist help needed at this one: Goat people. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, hmm. It looks to me like that one probably just needs to be deleted, per the template. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox/Cryptozoology

Hi Bloodofox. I've been happy to help you with some (albeit small) suggestions for improving your sandbox article. In fact, when you get it to where you like it, I suggest you move the finished piece to WP:ESSAY space. I trust you will avoid "citing" it (especially in Talk page discussions) as anything except personal opinions about how WP policy applies to folklore/fringe articles. It would be great if you wouldn't invoke my name in Talk page discussions in a way that could suggest to the other parties that I'm a potential supporter of whatever it is you may be arguing for at the moment. I know you didn't intend anything bad by it. But you can understand I don't wish to be unintentionally drawn into potential Talk page discussions. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie — I understand your concerns, these talk page discussions can be time consuming and all too often lead to nothing. It's an ugly process to make a sausage. I respect your wishes and I appreciate your time. I'll bump the piece over to WP:ESSAY when it's in a solid state. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Myth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore

You recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore, but I do not see either a defined scope, nor an evaluation system for articles. Is this Project inactive?

How does it differ in scope from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology, which already covered folklore? Do you also maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Mythology & Folklore? Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, does it cover folklore? Nothing in that scope appears to establish that. Mythology appears to define itself as a genre of folklore.--tronvillain (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain is correct. Myth is a specific folklore genre, alongside genres like legend, jokes, recipes, and traditional games. The hotlist appears to mistake myth as a synonym for folklore, evidently due to colloquial usage of the terms. I still haven’t made, say, templates for the WikiProject, as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nine Daughters of Ægir and Rán

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine_Daughters_of_Ægir_and_Rán&type=revision&diff=831668905&oldid=831456648

You added a sentence beginning with the word "s". What is missing? — Nicholas (reply) @ 07:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Good catch! The sentence was missing a subject. I’ve fixed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hello BloodofFox, Although we may not see things eye to eye on the subject. I do feel that, pseudoscience controversy aside, that most of the articles on cryptids are in a state of poor development and have "unbalanced coverage" meaning that many articles do not contain theories from notable scientists on both the skeptic and non-skeptic side. Now what I mean by non-skeptic is that some scientists who are open to the possibility of unidentifiable species (not all of them are cryptozoologists). I was thinking that, if a source is legitimate enough that they can be added to those articles if they are specifically on that particular cryptid. I also wanted to clarify the meaning of the word Cryptid. The word itself means "hidden animal", please read the definition found on the List of cryptids article. In regards to your reference to Reptilian Humanoids, not only are reptilian humanoids a part of mythology and popular culture, but there are several purported humanoids that have reptilian characteristics which classifies them under that particular "category". being a (somewhat) organized person, I like to classify certain cryptids under different categories based on eyewitness testimonies on the physical description: Humanoid (several sub-categories pertaining to characteristics that each one has), Lake Monster, Primate (Also can go under the humanoid sub-cat as hominid), Living dinosaur, Mammal (a wide-ranged category), Abomination (A cryptid that has no characteristics that meet any known animal), Reptile, etc. Hopefully this helps if not (or if there are any questions) please let me know.--Paleface Jack 15:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to read anything more than Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from your comments here. You have now been repeatedly reminded by several editors that Wikipedia does not provide equal time for pseudoscience (once again, WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). Whether you agree or not, cryptozoology quite uncontroversially falls into this category. Wikipedia defaults to the position of mainstream academics. That means zoologists for zoology articles and folklorists for folklore articles.

If you want to contribute to these articles and not simply have your edits in these areas that violate policy washed away (whether tomorrow or over time), you're going to need to rethink your approach. You'll need to turn to reliable sources (WP:RS) in fields relevant to the articles you're editing. If it's folklore, then you should be looking at peer-reviewed works by folklorists. If it's an animal, then you should be consulting the works of zoologists. If you're drawing from cryptozoology sources on these articles and you continue to use cryptozoology-derived approaches, you are both wasting your time and the time of others. There is no dividing line between "skeptics" and "believers" here. That's not the reality of the situation. Additionally, terms used by folklorists like "legend" and "myth" do not mean 'fiction'.

Again, if you're sick of encountering resistance or having your edits in this area consistently reverted and you'd like to turn your approach around to meet Wikipedia guidelines, I can help you get started. It's not too late. Wikipedia needs more editors making solid edits, not less. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I was meaning more around the lines of the formatt/writing style similar to the article on Hoodening. Took me a while to find creditable reporting of this, but I've found some literary sources that suggest that the tagging of cryptozoology with pseudoscience was doe by skeptics and argues it's legitimacy as a science. Although the pseudoscientific tag sort of applies to some of its unevenness. (I don't know if these sources are solid enough but looking around, a lot of the sources arguing for Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience to me have been done by skeptics).^[2]^[3]^[4] http://www.academia.edu/10845682/Cryptozoology_and_Pseudoscience https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-22246-2_26 http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/boing-boing/ -- unsigned comment from Paleface Jack (talk · contribs)

Please take a look at Cryptozoology#Reception_and_criticism, where you'll find harsh criticism of cryptozoology from academics reaching pretty far back. Biologists tend to be particularly brutal about their assessment of cryptozoology, whereas folklorists seem to either just ignore cryptozoology or describe it as a sort of folk belief. Note that pseudoscience adherents frequently refer to non-adherents as "skeptics", it's usually a red flag. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks interesting. Skeptic for me is usually someone who is skeptical of a theory or point of view, not someone who doesn't share the same view..--Paleface Jack 20:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ S.E. Schlosser. "About the Author". American Folklore. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
^ Jerome Clark (1993). Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena. Gale Research Incorporated. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-8103-8843-7.
^ Darren Naish (26 January 2016). Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths. Arcturus Publishing. pp. 17–19. ISBN 978-1-78428-191-5.
^ Michael Shermer; Pat Linse (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.

Flatwoods monster

According to the WVU regional history center, this topic has been covered by folklorists:

Baker, Amy. 2002. “The Flatwoods Monster Goes to College” [Dr. Judy Byers, West Virginia Folklife Center, Fairmont State College]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 28 (Fall): 62-63.
Griffith, Buddy. 2002. “The Legend of the Flatwoods Monster” [Flatwoods, W. Va., supernatural creature; 1952 sightings]. Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 28 (Fall): 56-61.
Horner, Kathleen May, informant. 2002. “The Legend of the Braxton County Monster/Flatwoods Monster.” Collected by Judy P. Byers and Dennis Deitz. Traditions: A Journal of West Virginia Folk Culture and Educational Awareness 8: 30-31.
Moerk, Alice. 2002. “The Flatwoods Monster: A Musical Drama: Creative Interpretation in Text Form.” Traditions: A Journal of West Virginia Folk Culture and Educational Awareness 8: 31-32.

If you have access to these journal articles (I don't), you may wish to add appropriate content to the article. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Great finds here, @LuckyLouie:. I'll see if I can dig them up sometime soon. Since we've discussed folklore-related topics several times now, did you see that we now have a WikiProject Folklore? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hey, have we ever actually established what would be a reliable source for something being a "cryptid"? Anyone, ever, calling it one? A "prominent" cryptozoologist calling it one? I suppose I should look at other pseudosciences and see if there's anything similar. --tronvillain (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we haven't, and therein is the problem: it may not be possible to do so. Right now the list seems to indeed be "anyone, ever, calling it one". Since cryptozoology is a pseudoscience with no academic support (and no evident institutional representation of any sort), it's hard for me to say how we'd establish any sort of scope or definition of reliability for anything to be included on list of cryptids. It seems to me that the best we could do is produce an article discussing how the limitations of what might fall under the definition of a cryptid among cryptozoologists varies by published work. It's a tough one. Confused editors, cryptozoologists, and edit-warriors only complicate the matter further. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always the reliable sources noticeboard, but hopefully I'll eventually be able to move all the "clearly not a cryptid" entries off of the list before that becomes necessary. Anyway, I've been poking around, and I love that the "cryptid infobox" is {{Infobox mythical creature}}. Also, WikiProject Cryptozoology articles only has 635 entries, so at least it's not into the thousands.--tronvillain (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there's been some discussion at the RS board, to no avail. Maybe that'll change in time. I certainly appreciate the work you're doing to get those articles in order, and I'll be glad to help out.

Regarding the infobox, we're quite fortunate that it wasn't called something like cryptid infobox, and then spread to thousands of articles. Now that'd be a mess to clean up!

If you haven't yet read this write up, you might find it useful. I've also started building WikiProject Folklore, if you're interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the closest analogies I can think of is List of homeopathic preparations, but those entries are at least referenced.--tronvillain (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to me that the construction of a list like list of cryptids wouldn't be possible with today's criteria in place. The absence of quality references is a major problem. However, since there's so much confusion surrounding the list, I guess the best we can do for now is at least make sure it has some level of scope or criteria. At the end of the day, the list itself gets very little traffic, and I think we'll be doing readers more of a service by making sure there's no undue pseudoscience on individual articles, which readers are a lot more likely to find. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There might be an argument for moving/duplicating some of the cryptid definition/criteria onto the cryptozoology page and giving it a subsection, since that would mean you weren't redirecting to a list.--tronvillain (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's worth considering. Since the list can't be sourced, sooner or later it'll have to go. You might want to keep an eye on that. FYI, looks like we've got a user reintroducing cryptozoology fringe stuff back into article spaces (cf. [38]). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting.--tronvillain (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured I'd just let that exchange go. By the way, we've got templates over at WP:Folklore now (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Folklore#Templates). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, stumbled across something I hadn't seen before.--tronvillain (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, seem to have missed the notification on this one. I wonder why this was created, exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to just be how someone was organizing that "unusual articles" page, but seems relevant to the project. --tronvillain (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. I wasn't aware of some of these pages! I'm going through them now. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the Cryptid Wiki, and noticed this. --tronvillain (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm. What to do about this? Fringe Noticeboard? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe nothing. Recruiting editors externally isn't against policy, is it? It was just one of the first things I saw on the page. --tronvillain (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it might be covered by WP:MEAT, but that seem to be for specific disputes rather than general recruitment for a WikiProject --tronvillain (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, hard to say. I seem to recall something about organized efforts to sway Wikipedia's coverage one way or another in the past. Couldn't find anything about it at WP:CANVAS. There have been a few other incidents I've noticed, including a Loch Ness Monster "researcher" I apparently offended some way or another ranting about my edits off site. I once also got an anonymous threat once, evidently from another cryptozoologist. I chalk it up as par for course when dealing with pseudosciences. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] S.E. Schlosser. "About the Author". American Folklore. Retrieved 10 August 2017.

[Clark1993-2] Jerome Clark (1993). Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena. Gale Research Incorporated. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-8103-8843-7.

[Naish2016-3] Darren Naish (26 January 2016). Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths. Arcturus Publishing. pp. 17–19. ISBN 978-1-78428-191-5.

[ShermerLinse2002-4] Michael Shermer; Pat Linse (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]