User talk:Ingwina

Welcome!

Hello, Ingwina! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elk-Froði has been accepted

Elk-Froði, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– SJ + 21:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on your work at Elk-Froði, an excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

About the first Northern Europe map you made.

You should zoom that out to include the Channel Islands, Jan Mayen and Svalbard, that way it covers the general maximum definition of Northern Europe according to the United Nations.Vesperius (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vesperius :) If you're referring to the satelite map, it does include the Channel Islands by my reckoning. As for the other two, they are unfortunately omitted from the image I derived the Northern Europe image from (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_satellite_orthographic.jpg) so I can't zoom out, unfortunately. If you find a better once, feel free to replace mine. --Ingwina (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant the original First Language Map. Sorry for not clarifying. Vesperius (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

No fret! I just checked and the software I used for it annoyingly misses off the Channel Islands and the others. It also doesn't go too far north and only leaves a tiny bit of Svalbard.--Ingwina (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Aw, oh well. Vesperius (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep it is a pain! Again feel free to update it if you find something better :) --Ingwina (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the color for the Celtic languages and Sami languages in the index of the Northern Europe First Language Map 2 is correct. Can you fix it if it's not? Vesperius (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Othala page reverted edit

Then the consensus is wrong. If you look at the talk page, the debate has ended and no one has brought up a good reason as to why it should stay in that section. The “reasons” given have been nothing but thinly veiled partisanship. FactCheckTruth (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi FactCheckTruth. Please see my response on the Othala page. Hopefully this will help. Ingwina (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Missing Bibliographies on Germanic boar helmet

Hey Ingwina,

Nice article at Germanic boar helmet; just wanted to leave a comment that some of the sources (Foster 1977a, Speake 1980, Stiegemann, Kroker & Walter 2013b, and Hatto 1957) are not associated with a source. This may just be the result of entering years/letters incorrectly in some of the cases but wanted to let you know. Very nice work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges,

Thanks for the nice feedback and thanks for the catch there. It should all be sorted now. Ingwina (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Galtung (noble family)

Hello Ingwina, I saw that you also came across this article. I don't even know where to begin on it, seems to be the result of one or more anonymous editors inserting their own original research without pushback since the beginning of this year. On top of that judging by their edit summaries they either have some kind of conflict of interest or they're trolling, not sure which one is worse. Either way they're aggressive and evidently clueless about basic policy such as sourcing, which I've given several notices to them about to no avail. Do you know anything about this family? What's the best approach here? I'm thinking of just wiping the article back to how it was before they came in, when it was at least sourced more properly, but I'm not sure so since you're the only other person I've seen edit it I'd like to ask you about it as you might know more about it than me. TylerBurden (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi TylerBurden - I also winced slightly when I saw it but really don't know much about it. I found it through Boars in heraldry which was also pretty dodgy and still has some issues. The editor is clearly a bit odd and is being openly rude. I think reverting all their edits would make sense. There is so little reliable sourcing like you said and I don't have any trust in their work given their clear motivations to not be objective. Good spot on this one though - thanks for dealing with it. I'll put irt on my watchlist to keep an eye on it - I'm sure they'll be back. Ingwina (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Right on, thanks for the response. I'll go ahead and reset it to before they started messing it up. Their reaction should be interesting given that they have been throwing tantrums at even slight interferences with their ″work″, but I'm willing to deal with that in order to get the article back into somewhat decent shape. I've got it on my watchlist so if you've already got quite a full one I think I can deal with it, but of course your help is welcome. Thanks either way! TylerBurden (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant. It looks much better now. Thanks for the good work! Ingwina (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Jötun vs. "giant"

I recall that at some point in the recent past you were looking for discussion of the use of the term "giant" in place of jötun. I've encountered this come up several times. Most recently, discussion about this topic occurs in John Lindow's Old Norse Mythology (2021, Oxford University Press). On page 18, Lindow discusses how the term is "misleading" and how the jötnar are rarely distinguished by their size. Nonetheless, he continues to use the term for the rest of the book. I can provide more direct quotes if you like and I'll keep an eye out for where else I've seen such discussion. I believe there was a very relevant article I encountered sometime within the past few years that I'm now trying to find again. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That's brilliant - thank you. It's on my list of bits I really want to get done and I'm hoping to sort it out in the next few weeks. Anything you find would be very useful and I'll be looking too. Ingwina (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hákon and Jól

Hi, I apologize for confused edits. Regarding the recent revert: as I understand, Midwinter didn't take place during the solstice and the Saga attributed Hákon with moving Yule from Midwinter to solstice/Christmas; is that correct? SMiki55 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi SMiki55 :) Not a problem at all - it's a confusing topic and there is lots of questionable information out there! It's good to get discussions going so we can sort it out collectively. So this is the bit I think you're referencing:

"Hann setti þat í lögum at hefja jólahald þann tíma sem kristnir menn, ok skyldi þá hverr maðr eiga mælis öl, en gjalda fé ella, en halda heilagt meðan jólin ynnist. En áðr var jólahald hafit hökunótt, þat var miðsvetrar nótt, ok haldin þriggja nátta jól."

"He made a law that the festival of Yule should begin at the same time as Christian people held it, and that every man, under penalty, should brew a meal of malt into ale, and therewith keep the Yule holy as long as it lasted. Before him, the beginning of Yule, or the slaughter night, was the night of mid-winter, and Yule was kept for three days thereafter."

A key difficulty here is what we mean by "the night of midwinter" (Old Norse: "miðsvetrar nótt"). Also we need to be careful with extrapolating this source out into other cultures observing Yule. It seems to be the case that the celebration of Yule gets moved to align with Christmas in England, Norway and so on but these all occured at different times. We also know that Hákon's attempt to Christianise Norway wasn't without bumps so it may have returned to the traditional time afterwards.

A good discussion is in https://www.academia.edu/1366945/Jul_disting_och_f%C3%B6rkyrklig_tider%C3%A4kning.

Here we see in the English summary at page 155-156.

"The exact information about the time of the pre-Christian Yule is given by

Snorri, who says that the feast was celebrated on Midwinter Night. This has,

however, been much debated, because Midwinter Night did not occur until

about a month after the winter solstice. In actual fact this does not present a major

problem, because Yule seems to be linked to both the winter solstice and

Midwinter Night. Yule was probably celebrated at the time of the second Yule

lunar month’s full moon. This moon month started at the first new moon after

the winter solstice. Its full moon could thereby occur on 5 January at the earliest

and on 2 February at the latest—expressed in the Gregorian calendar."

We also need to keep in mind that it may sound like the date of Yule is variable but it only moves in calendars like the Gregorian calendar. In the Early Germanic calendar, it is always the same day :) I've been meaning to tidy up these pages but haven't had the time. If you want to - I'm here to help with sources and so on and checking over your work - if not I understand and I will get there in the end!

I hope this helps! Ingwina (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for response and apologies for not responding myself (I didn't get the notification).

Would you be able to write a section discussing the date in the article? It seems that people are still re-adding solstice as the date without noticing article edit history; a section devoted to dating in the article itself might be helpful :)

Cheers!

SMiki55 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - that's probably my fault for not tagging properly or something like that! Okay yep no problem I'll put in on my list. I may be able to get it out this weekend :) Ingwina (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

SMiki55 I've uploaded it now. The scope of the page is blurry and it'd benefit from input from sensible people so do take a look and see what you think! Ingwina (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Recently reverted edit

Hello, recently you removed a fair bit of one of my edits due to an unreliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Numbers_in_Norse_mythology&oldid=1152772189. I was looking into the source and it does seem amateur but looking into the citations and the About Me section it seems sincere. So I am curious what to look out for in the future so I'm not fooled again by an unreliable source. Thank you! Chacabangaso (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chacabangaso! Thanks for getting in touch. The first place I'd check out is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This gives the guidelines. Really what you're aiming for is work from reputable scholars - ideally the work should be in a peer reviewed journal :) If you want my opinion on if something looks good you can always give me a shout! Google scholar is often a good place to start! Ingwina (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Recently reverted edit for Weyland the Smith

Hi Ingwina. You've recently reversed my 'Modern Culture' reference in the Weyland the Smith entry on two occasions, the first due to no citation, the second questioning the veracity of the citation. Looking at your editing history I can see that you appear to be a source of expertise in these areas that I'll loosely call Northern European mythology, I respect your knowledge and contributions - and undoubted wish to keep exact the pages you monitor. However I do feel that you are being a little harsh on my edit. Neither of the other 2 'Modern Culture' references have citations at all, yet are allowed to stand. I have attempted to place a citation on my addition, but it has been reverted. This feels like multiple standards on the page. As it is, it was very difficult to find a more in-depth citation for the book reference. The author was a medium figure in fantasy literature - referenced in Wikipedia itself, but the genre typically does not get covered by extensive literary study and comment from major sources, peer review etc. I'm well aware of the story, having read it several times in my youth, and then making the connections having visited the 'Wayland Smithy' long Barrow near the Uffington Horse and looking into the history. The story is very clearly the source material for the trilogy, with the specifics I mentioned used as the primary plot in the third book. I think it is a reasonable entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quagswag (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Quagswag! Thanks for dropping me a message. Thanks too for your compliments - it's really appreciated. So in regards to the revert- I completely get the frustration. The core of the problem is that we need reliable sources to accurately back everything up so that we can make this as good quality as possible. With the Goodreads source, we had a two-fold problem of the source not mentioning all the content in the text and also that the Goodreads reviews can be written by anyone without any checking - in concept one could write a review about how good Gandalf is described in Pride and Prejudice and then it could be used to back up a claim along these lines. I feel your frustration and know how difficult it can be to find sources on modern influence like this and I did take a look earlier to see what I could find through academic journals without any luck. I am a massive supporter of the accurate description of the modern influences of Northern European lore so I do really appreciate your efforts in this. A potential way to reference it well is to use the books themselves, referencing page numbers and the like. I can't promise it'll get past other wikipedlings with finer toothed combs regarding guidelines on reliable sources and significant modern influences but the approach would make sense to me.

As for the other unreferenced sections, they do frustrate me and I was likely the one who put the markers down. In the case when a mention slips past me or has dwelt there since before I was here, I tend to put markers and then may also delete them depending on number, relevance and time since the marker was placed. I won't be wholly consistent on this but I can assure you they are being treated in the same way as your work, I just likely wasn't there to revert them. I revert a lot of unreferenced or insufficiently referenced material - definitely annoying for the writers but essential to keep wikipedia tidy and useful for readers. I hope this helps and makes sense and I'm keen to help where I can! Ingwina (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ingwina. Thank you for getting back to me and providing a detailed explanation around all the inconsistences. I can understand your frustration in regard to the other unreferenced sections. I'm presuming you cannot 'revert' them after a certain period of time?

It's going to be tricky getting a citation that works. I will go dig out my copy of the book to find some relevant passages. I suspect it is going to be difficult. I did have a look online, but there are no readable PDF's from what I would consider a reputable source (not stealing from authors...). If I do find a quote from a physical book, I'm presuming that copying it into the page would not be acceptable. I may love the books, but that creates way too long a reference for such a minor section!

For someone who doesn't get around to making contributions often, It's fascinating looking at the history of pages. I've been taking a look and can see I similar problem with what was then termed the 'Popular Culture' section. I had restored the section - that had been lost from this page for 2 years; only to have it entirely removed again immediately. The Hammer of the Sun reference was in there too, I suspect I put it in the original list :) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayland_the_Smith&oldid=281046515 I appreciate the attempts to keep pages clean, but looking down that older list, I can see what we are losing in terms of collective knowledge; which saddens me. I'm sure those with a passion for Wikipedia editing have discussed this sort of thing many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quagswag (talk • contribs) 06:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Quagswag. Yep it's always just about the trickiness of referencing them and also it's quite easy for the list of references in the popular culture section to start dominating the page - in times like this, folks can sometimes start trimming it down based on notability but I'm not clued up enough on wikipedia guidelines to typically do that myself. In terms of referencing, the sfn system may help you - this is how I typically reference and you can just put in the citation the pages of relevance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sfn

If you need any help with it again just give a shout! Ingwina (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You show a lot of effort and sincerity in northern topics oft-neglected. Allt ágætt~! ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 04:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Cult house" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cult house has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16 § Cult house until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Fax (hair)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fax (hair) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 19 § Fax (hair) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you're a member of WP:Folklore, would you be interested in joining a wikiproject on oral tradition (which folklore is a subset of)? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kowal2701! I'd definitely be interested. I have a long list of planned works but if I can I'll help out :) Ingwina (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

Hello! I really appreciate your additions to the article, but I would like to ask that you go back and remove the detail you added. First, there is now a bunch of detail on Britain, and if it's in one place, it should be in all, and it isn't. That gives Britain WP:Undue weight.

Second, this is a broad overview article and details - even when they can be seen as evidence for what's being said - are not broad. Determining what details are important enough to include requires some larger impact on some major issue during the overall 2000 year history. The detail on Britain is not that.

Third, my goal is to take this article to FA. It's already long enough that it is unlikely to succeed based purely on that length, so adding more at this point torpedoes those goals. This is a "premiere" article that should be FA imo, and anything that makes that more difficult is problematic.

I am trying to finish up adding Eastern Christianity, which was specifically requested in the peer review, and every time I add something, I look for something to delete. Out of respect for your work, I am asking you to cut most of what you added in order to do the same. It's not that it isn't good and interesting. It's just too much for this particular article. Please support my effort to get this article up to FA standards, and go back and cut all of the detail you can cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jenhawk777 and thanks for getting in touch. I understand your point and think we can find a good middle ground for a lot of this. From where I stand, we need to not be misleading with it and link the main article on the topic that I've just sorted out.

There wasn't even a section for Britain after 600. I've chopped a load out and I think it covers everything briefly now. Hopefully it's okay now :) Ingwina (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be unappreciative of your work. It's good work with good intent, I can see that. In the Origins section, it lists pretty thoroughly all the various locations, but if you note, they are not all followed up on thereafter. One of the first things the first peer review did was cut all specific mentions of countries - then in the second review, others asked why they weren't mentioned. Par for the course for peer review, but now it's on those of us working on it to decide what to do. I am thinking I am going to have to - have to - cut all the countries into a simple list of one paragraph - maybe describe one thing in the way origins/geographic spread does. I will probably end up doing that for the sake of brevity. I'm sorry. It's just too much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's okay! Don't worry - I know how this goes. My biggest problem with it was it being misleading. Selective briefness that misses the key points and suggests that it's telling the whole story is the issue. Just briefly mentioning it and saying where to go to find more is all that matters! If you're being consistent between regions, how could I ask for more? :) Ingwina (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I went and condensed and removed, and the *##!! thing is still over 12,000 words. (I kept some of your stuff on Britain, since it was so good.) However, I still don't think I can nominate at that length. I am extremely frustrated. I also sympathize with and understand your frustration. Defining key points is definitely an issue. If you find anything that seems misleading, please do tell me! We do not want that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay perfect - that sounds like a plan. Thank you for your understanding and dedication to making great articles. I wish you all the best with the nomination and that all your hard work pays off! Ingwina (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Your last edit added England - which began when? Should that be included? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you worried about anachronism? So England as a kingdom became an entity roughly between 927 and 1016 but as a geographical region, it is common for scholars to use England to refer to the region of Britain settled by Germanic folks from the 5th century and their later kingdoms (see Anglo-Saxon England). It's a debated and imperfect term but is typically used in this way and it's probably the best we have, especially if we're trying to be succinct :) I think it's also good to use that term as it is very possible (and some will know this for sure) that paganism was suppressed in Roman Britain in areas that became English later on. I hope this makes sense and I'm always happy to help! Ingwina (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you've been a stickler for using Iberia etc. so I was surprised to see 'England' before there was one. What evidence is there that paganism was suppressed in Roman Britain? Britain was abandoned about 400 and in that same period, paganism was still alive and well in the empire. The only things being suppressed were sacrifice and divination.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

But my point that I tried to explain above (likely poorly) is that in the 7th century there was an England it just wasn't a single kingdom. I don't think it's anachronistic to talk about it in this way. You could specify "Anglo-Saxon England" but that is more words and is just more specific rather than necessary. England is commonly used to refer to the areas in which Old English was spoken in Britain before the unification in the 10th century and onwards. England does not in this case mean the kingdom of England.

My point about Britain and suppression is not that I'd ever seen anything saying there was suppression but that my reference and claim that this is the first time in England that suppression happened is not trying to claim anything about other bits of Britain or the region that became England before it before the Anglo-Saxon settlement. It also seems plausible to me that there was suppression recorded that I'm not aware of in Western or Northern Britain or Ireland before the 7th century but I don't know enough about these regions to know if there was.Ingwina (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Svaðilfari

Hi Ingwina,

Thank you very much for creating a discussion at Talk:Svaðilfari. You're the first person who has taken this ideal approach in the years-long dispute, so there's finally a place where the matter could be discussed instead of edit warring. I'm always happy to see someone taking this step.

However, if I may ask, please focus on content there. I'd recommend changing the heading to something about the content itself, not the behavior. The reverting isn't what would be discussed there; the content is. Also, the protection is now there, but protection could have been requested and discussed at WP:RFPP. Instead of describing how the edit warring behavior is a waste of time, please describe why you prefer the version you have restored. What exactly in this version makes it preferable to the IP editor's version? Is the content more accurate, and how so? Is it more encyclopedic, and why? Is there perhaps, ideally, a policy or guideline you can cite about this, such as the policy against original research that prohibits personal interpretation of primary sources? That would be perfect.

Before someone replies, you can still freely change heading and content of your talk page section. If you agree it could be improved, please do; I can then invite the others to the discussion and there's finally a consensus we can point to if someone still reverts.

Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ToBeFree! Yes okay no problem - forgive my poor focusing - that was my tiredness speaking with the situation and I'm not as familiar with protocols and style guides as others. I should be able to sharpen up the article this weekend and make all these changes then. I fully agree with your points. Ingwina (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

All good, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)