User talk:Bloodofox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

/Archive I /Archive II /Archive III

Contents 1 Translation of "Danmarks Runeinskrifter" 2 Freyr statuette 3 Replaceable fair use Image:Boyd portugal.jpg 4 Request for Fly-By and Possible Co-Work 4.1 Runic inscription articles 5 Sif 6 Odin 7 The Sundby runestone 8 Sort by date 9 Sif 10 Loki 11 Editing article on Robert Graves' The White Goddess 12 Image:Idun and Thiazi.jpg 13 Ballads 14 Runes 15 AfD nomination of Alu (runic) 16 Why was runic bibliography deleted? 17 Portal:Ancient Germanic culture 18 Project: Barbarians? 19 Re: Anglo-Saxon category question 20 your moves 21 Thanks... 22 Viktor Rydberg 23 Wikiproject Barbarians 24 WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies 25 Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes 26 Bornholm and Copenhagen runestones 27 You beat me to it 28 Comparison Tiwaz - Irminsul 29 Re: Invitation

[edit] Translation of "Danmarks Runeinskrifter"

Hi Bloodofox, I wonder what you think would be the best way of translating "Danmarks Runeinskrifter" into English. A Swedish runestone, such as U 344 has the full name "Upplands runinskrifter 344", and on English WP we translate it as "Uppland Runic Inscription 344". What might be best "Danish Runic Inscription XXX" or "Denmark's Runic Inscription XXX"?--Berig (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Berig, the most direct translation of that would be "Denmark's Runic Inscriptions" but for the sake of English, it might be best to simply write "Danish Runic Inscription XXX" as it looks rather weird otherwise. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freyr statuette

Hi Bloodofox, I made another trip to the museum to take more pictures. I have both good and bad news. The famous hammer you talked about is in the main display together with the statuette of Freyr and a statuette of Odin and several other pagan objects. The good news is that they can be seen and that they are apparently considered to be national treasures, being in the main display in the high security "gold room" (where you also find plenty of booty from the fall of the Roman empire). The bad news is that as I was taking pictures of them, a guard told me that it is forbidden to take pictures in that section of the museum, and when I got home the pictures were of too bad quality anyway.--Berig (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame! I was looking forward to getting some decent shots myself of these objects. It's ridiculous in a way as it helps promote their museum. Maybe there's some royalty-free book out there that we can get some decent photographs of it from but I have yet to encounter one. The hunt continues! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

One solution could be to order/buy a copy from the museum store. They sell copies of the statuettes of all the three main gods, Odin, Thor and Freyr. I would have bought copies myself, if the price of c. 400 Swedish kronor hadn't felt too steep at the moment.--Berig (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen these statues available at the Roskilde Viking Ship museum and actually got a few shots of them there. Unfortunately, they are all bunched together and so individual shots were impossible. At the time, however, I wasn't prepared to put down the kroner myself on them though I'd like to! They also had an extremely well done reproduction available of the bird-headed Mjolnir. I think some local museums here may have some available too, though I believe there are two different companies that handles the Danish museums (Kopi Smykker for Denmark) and the Swedish Museum items (Company name?). I'll see if I can get some decent shots of a solid reproduction next I get a chance, which may be soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Boyd portugal.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Fly-By and Possible Co-Work

Hi Bloodofox,

I ran across a portal (Portal:Ancient Germanic culture) the other day that looked like it really needs some love to get it going properly - a questionable intro ( I tried to give it an overhaul, but it is still in need of lots of work), lots of empty slots in the modules (only one entry in each when I found it), problems with the categories, a few bugs in the purge code (hopefully fixed for now), etc., etc. I added a bit of depth to the color-layout: whether others like it remains to be seen. I recognize that some people around here would very gladly delete the whole thing and chalk it up to "ethnic nationalist mysticism" or something. And I would agree that the title itself has problems. But I've spent some time looking after this more or less 'forgotten portal', and have grown somewhat attached to its future. I would appreciate it if someone with a bit of honest interest in the subject itself would help me look after it before it catches the attention of the exclusionists...

Thanks,

Aryaman (☼) 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Varoon, I will gladly give you a hand with this when I have some more free time on my hands. At the moment, I am pretty busy. The portal does look a lot better though! :bloodofox: (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the encouragment. See you then! Aryaman (☼) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runic inscription articles

Hi again. In my effort to get a "Selected inscription" or "Selected artifact" module going for the Ancient Germanic culture portal, I have taken on a few runic inscription articles (namely: Pforzen buckle, Meldorf fibula, Bülach fibula, etc.). My latest work involves the Ring of Pietroassa (currently on Gothic runic inscriptions). Seeing as the material there was rather skimpy, I decided to work on it in my Sandbox. There are some growing issues (particularly whether this material will go back in Gothic runic inscriptions, be put on its own new page, or get broken up, with some going to the Pietroasele treasure article) that will need consensus from interested editors. If you have any useful information or would like to contribute (either to the article or to the effort in getting a new module up and running), feel welcome to drop by. Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Varoon. Sounds great to me. I will drop by and at least try to clean them up a bit and see what I can add - hopefully I can be of more help here than I was with the portal as, at this point, I am not very familiar with portals on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi bloodofox. FYI: I have created the article Ring of Pietroassa. Feel free to add any information you might have. Comments are also welcome. Thanks. Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! Excellent, it looks like you've put a lot of work into this and have produced a pretty solid article. I will help as much as I can. I've recently started an article on Alu that is related and you're welcome to assist there. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I've added what I think will be useful information to the TalkPage for Alu. (Hopefully you speak German. If not, let me know and I will translate some of the Simek info for you.) The material from Looijenga needs to be mined for citations: take a look at her bibliography and see if you can find any of the works referenced in that passage in your local library - I will be doing the same on my end.

One last thing regarding Ring of Pietroassa: I'm currently trying to flesh out the section on 'Meaning'. I recall once reading something regarding this inscription being used to substantiate claims of the existence of Gothic heathen priestesses, but I can't remember where I read this. Have you ever run across this claim? Or do you know of other info that would fit in here? I figure the section needs at least one more paragraph before I can nominate the article for 'Good'-status. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks again. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Ring of Pietroassa for GA-status (under the Archeology). Thanks for your help with the article. Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in my response before. I intended to. Regarding the Gothic priestesses, I'm afraid I do not know the reference. I would also like to see this became a GA-status article (we certainly need more of these in this area!) and will help as much as I can, though it seems the article is currently in great condition and, as far as I can tell, easily the most comprehensive summary on the subject on the internet. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Ring of Pietroassa has passed GA-review! Thanks for your help with the article. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear! We need more articles of this quality. I'm looking forward to future collaboration. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sif

1. On Hold — Notes left on talk page. Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you know that the article problems ideally have to be addressed in 7 days.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there - thanks for the reminder. I'll do a quick sweep on it now as it shouldn't take much. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odin

Hi. I think you know that I have been helping with Norse articles, but now I'm fed up with your friends. Please take a look at Odin article, it says "Odin goes hunting with a rifle". Joke? Vandalism? That article has 2 citations or something like that. Are your friends ever going to improve it? Anyone care? 123.19.53.201 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. While I know neither of these users personally, I've always found them to be helpful, knowledgeable and friendly enough. It's true that the Odin article, as it stands, is very poor in terms of Wikipedia standards, however, your recent "contribution" (rather obviously stemming from Talk:Brisingamen for which you've been banned from various articles (and your sock puppets, for that matter) are certainly not helping. In the future, I will get around to completely revamping the article but that's going to depend on when I feel like it.

Why are you being reverted? You need to keep things neutral and reference any semblance of an opinion, further stating that it is the opinion of your reference. I suggest you take a look at WP:NPOV, consider making an account, and deal with people in a polite and good faith-assuming manner unless you simply want to be reverted every time you post something like this on any of these articles. At this point, I think people are well warranted to view this "contribution" you keep posting to various articles as vandalism. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are misunderstanding something here. I was blocked for several hours and the sysop reverted my edits because he told me that he does not know if I am right but I need to cool off abit. The sysop told me himself that I am allowed to edit as usual after the ban expired, which it expired after just a few hours. Cheers. 123.19.61.247 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Sundby runestone

Hi Bloodofox, I promised you a pic of the beautiful runestone in Sundby. Unfortunately, it is made in a grayish stone and it is not painted, so I don't think its present state makes it justice. I was surprised to find out that it is located only a few hundred metres from the famous Ramsund carving.--Berig (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the photo, Berig! I still intend to get that photograph for you. A shame that they don't have that stone painted, it's my favorite so far. It's good to know that it's so close to the Ramsund carving too, as I'd like to take see that next time I am in the area. A solution to some of these non-painted stones could be to make a vector trace of them. Unfortunately, my previous copy of Adobe Illustrator doesn't seem to work with Vista (typical) but I will most likely do a trace when I get everything up and running again. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sort by date

If you say Poetic Edda is earlier than Prose, then it's earlier than Gesta Danorum as well, and some of the poems may be much older than 9th century. Anyway, it's weird to put Gesta Danorum between two Eddas. 123.19.47.55 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. I would say it's best in such situations to place the two Eddas beside one another as they're obviously very closely tied together. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sif

Nice that you're working on Sif. Note that her name is used in a gold kenning in Bjarkamál. Haukur (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm attempting to get it to GA status. Regarding the kenning, that's good to know and I will add it. Do you know of any more mentions of Sif outside of what I have listed? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll teach you a trick - use Finnur Jónsson's Lexicon Poeticum. In cases like this it will usually give you all occurrences of a name in the old poetry. And it's available online: Sif In this case we obtain the Hárbarðsljóð reference. Then we learn that Sif is used in kennings for Þórr in a poem by Eysteinn Valdason and some other places. Then we get the Bjarkamál reference I pointed out to you. Then we learn that Sif is used in kennings for women and finally that it's used as a name for the Earth in Nafnaþulur. Even if you don't have much Danish you should be able to get the gist of the entries and follow up the poetic references. Haukur (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! That is pretty handy and I will get use out of it. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loki

Thanks for your edit on the Loki page, pertaining to the Modern age section. I was worried an edit war was going to erupt. Best, Vincent Valentine 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing article on Robert Graves' The White Goddess

(As you seemed to be a previous contributor to this article, I thought you might be able to help on this query ?)

I recently added a bibliography and some external links to the article on RG's The White Goddess, as the existing entry was tagged as 'This article needs sources or references that appear in reliable third-party publications ...' I thought my list of editions and secondary material on The WG fulfilled those criteria. And subsequently I removed the warning tag.

However, the 'public' view of the entry does not include my additions, and still shows the warning tag. I can only see my editing when I am logged in. I haven't encountered this with similar editing on other articles. What am I doing wrong ? ( I have read the Wikepedia Help pages, cleared my cache, etc, etc, but no difference ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by L107 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest viewing of the RG/WG article in the 'public view' - my edits do now appear - so maybe disregard this query. Sorry ! 07.04.08

Alright, no problem. Thanks for the references - feel free to add citations from them though, as they aren't much good without them, I am afraid! :bloodofox: (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Idun and Thiazi.jpg

Another case of an upload to Commons destroying source information. Haukur (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspected it was something like this - since I couldn't fit it on the overhauled article I decided I ought to pull it anyway as it didn't have a proper title and all. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballads

I have written articles on the ballads Töres dotter i Wänge and Stolt Herr Alf. Any improvements or suggestions are most welcome.--Berig (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Berig, interesting reads. I'll give them some attention and see what I can do. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runes

Thanks for taking a picture of the Kolind runestone! I'd prefer a colour pic, and I hope you'll upload one as well :). As for the Alu article, I have made a redirect from ale runes, and maybe Egil Skallagrimsson's use of ale runes refers to the alu combination. --Berig (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the colour pic. I like the way colour brings out the nature of the stone.--Berig (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here - my only problem with the unpainted ones is that the color can really obscure the inscription but with some leveling the grayscale images can be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The greyscale format makes the runes easier to read.--Berig (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Alu (runic)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Alu (runic), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alu (runic). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Powers ^T 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was runic bibliography deleted?

I notice that in your revision of 18:02, 3 May 2008, to the Runic alphabet article, you deleted the link to the bibliography of runic scholarship at http://www.galinngrund.org/Runes-Bibliography.htm. Your edit summary was "deleted advertisements," but this doesn't seem to apply to the bibliography in question, since it's a scholarly reference page on a nonprofit foundation's website. Did you delete that particular link by mistake, or what was your rationale for deleting it? Rsradford (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I deleted most of this section as I figured what I had deleted was either an advertisement or not necessary. However, the link you've mentioned probably could be helpful - while not necessary, I will not remove it if you return it. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Ancient Germanic culture

The Ancient Germanic culture portal has been updated to include a module on runic artifacts. Please feel free to include leads and images to noteworthy articles at Portal:Ancient_Germanic_culture/Runic_inscription. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your recent additions. They are greatly appreciated! —Aryaman (Enlist!) 11:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I'll help as much as I can. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project: Barbarians?

So, who does one go to in order to nominate a project for deletion? Aryaman (Enlist!) 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure but I agree that it needs to go. Here's a long discussion that occurred some time ago regarding the term that I was involved in that you may be interested in: Talk:Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#On_Barbarian. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm surprised no one quoted Yale professor Walter Goffart, who actively campaigns for the elimination of the term "Germanic" from all academic discussion outside of linguistics. What does he suggest we replace it with? Why, "barbarian", of course! And gleefully lump together Huns with Heruli, Slavs with Suebii, etc., etc. ad nauseum. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The conversation I linked to seemed to revolve around a lack of understanding of the modern term "German" as opposed to "Germanic". From the summaries I've read of Goffart's writing, he seems to talk about "ancient Germans" as well - thus completely missing the meaning of the term Germanic and the implications of it as opposed to German. As I am sure you're well aware, it's very common for people to be completely clueless when it comes to this subject matter. Since he's a Yale professor, I hope that's not the case but with an argument like that.. ? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Anglo-Saxon category question

Hi Bloodofox. As far as I know, we non-admins have to go through the discussion process to get a category renamed - which can be extremely tedious, especially when discussing one category in isolation and without the backing of a project with a clear mandated plan behind any proposed changes. I looked into this a while back when I was trying to get the categories related to the various Germanic peoples into some kind of logical order, with continuity in naming, etc. But without the consensus that a taskforce or project brings with it, I quickly abandoned the attempt.

One question regarding your proposal: Do you plan on having modern Anglo-Saxon paganism included in the renamed category? If so, it might be easier simply to create a "Anglo-Saxon paganism" category and add Anglo-Saxon mythology as a subcategory to it. I would support such a course of action without hesitation. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be appropriate to somehow link the categories for Anglo-Saxon paganism and what would be Anglo-Saxon Neopaganism together, though I was thinking more along any ancient sources referencing Anglo-Saxon paganism, including things like the Nine Herbs Charm, prohibitions against practices, the Franks Casket due to some of the depictions there, and so forth. As it stands, this stuff won't fit under the "Anglo-Saxon mythology" umbrella but everything in the Anglo-Saxon mythology category will fit in it - probably more appropriately in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty straightforward. I would just create Category:Anglo-Saxon paganism and then place Category:Anglo-Saxon mythology within it, weeding out as necessary. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I've since created it and we can now add things specifically Anglo-Saxon and pagan to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good move. I've already started with some of the more obvious additions. ;) —Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your moves

Why did you begin moving articles with "reconstructed" terms to titles including an asterisk? We have discussed this and decided against it. If you want to revisit the discussion, please feel free to do that, but don't just start moving things around on a whim. I apologize in case you have in fact discussed this somewhere and got consensus for the moves. If you have not discussed it, I would ask you to undo your moves and seek consensus first. --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to this discussion. Considering this is standard practice and these articles are in a miserable state, I have no idea why this ought not be done. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what "these articles are in a miserable state" has to do with anything. You are very welcome to improve them. The discussion took place on Talk:Wōdanaz#Asterisk_link. I am not saying you should have been aware of it, I am saying you could have dropped a note on some talkpage before embarking on moving dozens of articles. Yes, reconstructed terms should be marked as such in the article body. It doesn't do any good to mark them in article titles, this will only confuse people, mess up alphabetic order, among other undesireable effects, to no advantage whatsoever. Also, as you of all people should be aware of, these names are not simply philological reconstructions, but also very much proper names in contemporary use. "Gyfu", "Fehu", "Haglaz" etc. all give me thousands of google hits: that would amount to real-life notability even if the names were recent coinage, not philological reconstructions. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I mentioned that these articles are a poor state because I intend to improve them - which I feel I am doing. I think this is a good start on standardizing these articles; hopefully I can get some agreement on a prototype article and we can just apply that template to each article.

There is an issue with not using the asterisk. Right now, a lot of articles surrounding Runological topics are being worked on so these articles are getting linked a lot and thus my attention. Each time, we're going to have to format the link without the asterisk and also with the asterisk when it's not necessary because all forms derive from the reconstructed term.

About the "confusion" - in their current states, these articles often do not indicate that they are reconstructions and not unattested, a serious problem. We can solve the asterisk by blatantly explaining each time that it's a linguistic reconstruction. That includes linking the asterisk. There are many variations of these "names" floating around and I don't think it's doing anyone any service to not treat them the same way any academic work would. If you want to call a vote somewhere, I am fine with that - I'll change them back if it's not agreed that it ought to stay.

The alphabetical order could be an issue, though a minor one. What "other undesirable effects"?

Either way, I'll get around to fixing the articles up in time. As it stands, I side with standard practice that reconstructed terms should always be asterisked to show they're unattested. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intentions, but I don't think you see the full picture here. It will not be possible to "apply a tempate" to all runic articles, because the situation of the individual runes vary widely. That is not to say some standadization wouldn't be possible, but it will be a rather delicate task involving a lot of background knowledge. I think this discussion belongs on Talk:Runic alphabet, since it concerns a series of articles, and should take place somewhere central where people can find it. dab (𒁳) 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by "applying a template", I didn't mean writing up script and just pasting that on the articles - I meant text that could largely be copied and pasted with some adjustments that can directly and clearly explain the subject matter. Conversation continues per suggestion at Talk:Runic alphabet. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for signing up at the Ancient Germanic culture project proposal! We only need a few more signatures to get the project underway. Your willingness to participate is greatly appreciated. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viktor Rydberg

Hello Bloodofox. You removed a link from this article that has been the subject of intense negotiations. While the value of any external link is open for discussion, I'm concerned that your removal of this link might be due to disagreement with the point of view of the web site, and not a neutral assessment of its value to Wikipedia readers. Please participate at Talk:Viktor Rydberg and explain your reasoning. There is also a report about this article at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The inclusion of this link was part of a compromise. Perhaps you'd like to help us re-do that entire compromise? :-) EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston. I removed the link because I thought it might be a joke. The sheer vitriol spewed at Rydberg for no apparent reason and claims of a "cyber-cult" struck me as if something was amiss. You're saying this is serious? I was unaware of the compromise and will take a look - I tend to prune subject matter on these articles on sight, especially when it comes to link farms. This smells pretty fishy though. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right about the link. Thanks for joining the discussion. At present we have one generalist working on the article (who is usually scholarly and well-balanced), and two very opinionated editors who have written elsewhere about Rydberg, but tend to lapse into personal attacks since they are on opposite sides. The rest of us are just trying to keep the article from descending into chaos, but it sounds like you actually know something about Rydberg. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in contact with me here about it, I always appreciate a note. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Barbarians

I've been trying to find out to whom we should turn in this matter, but I have failed to locate any kind of "Projects for Deletion" nomination page. I have notified the WikiProject Celts team of their being unilaterally subsumed by this 'Barbarian project', both on their project page as well as on some individual userpages. Unfortunately I haven't heard anything back yet. If the so-called 'daughter projects' categorically refuse inclusion, then perhaps the person behind the thing will get the message and give up.

Considering the number of currently inactive projects on Wikipedia (currently at ca. 250), I'm betting that there is no way to nominate them for deletion as yet. It looks at though people just expect 'bad' projects to have low membership levels and thus maintain a low profile, doing little to no tangible damage.

As he didn't go through the proper channels to create this project - which normally requires a minimum of 5 willing members before a project can be started - I suppose some admin could give him a slap on the wrist and delete it, chalking it up to a waste of server space. (FYI: He's also single-handedly started a new project: WikiProject Picts.) But, honestly, I'm not quite sure what steps to take next. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I left Pecopteris a message. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And apparently he's started a Barbarians portal as well...

Ugh, this "Barbarian" business. When you do find out, please drop me a note as I'd like to also give my opinion of the matter. Thanks for going the extra mile, your contributions and diligence are greatly appreciated! :bloodofox: (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good news. It looks like Pecopteris has recognized that the 'Barbarian' pages are under heavy fire, and has agreed to having all things 'Barbarian'-related (the category, the project, the portal, the templates, etc.) deleted. You can read his comments on the latest SfD discussion here. As soon as an admin gets around to closing the CfD discussion, I'll empty it out if no one beats me to it. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. He seems like a reasonable guy, I know I made my share of mistakes in some of my early Wikipedia edits. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I made my share as well. (And probably have some lurking in to not-so-distant future.) One thing that this has shown me, however: Pecopteris had a point in that the East and West Germanic tribes (and their related aticles) are currently not covered by a WikiProject, but are only tangentally covered under various projects (Goths > Roman History, Runes > Writing Systems, etc.). This is something I hope we can correct with the Ancient Germanic Studies Project. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the creation of the WikiProject was a particularly good idea on your part then. To be honest with you, I had not paid much attention to WikiProjects previously (and subsequently I was of little use when you requested help in formatting it) but I can certainly see the use of it now. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put up a few notes on what I envision for a Runic Studies task force under the (hopefully soon to be created) Ancient Germanic Studies WikiProject in my Sandbox. Feel free to have a look and comment/change as you see fit.

This WikiProject could have many such task forces. I plan on starting one for the Ancient East Germanic people (or perhaps simply the Goths) as soon as the project gets enough support to get going. Of course, the Norse history and culture project would continue unhindered, as it does a good job of covering the Ancient North Germanic peoples. And we can use the related Portal:Ancient Germanic culture as our means to present the best fruits of our efforts to the wider public in a unified, aesthetically pleasing fashion. If you have any further ideas related to any of this, just drop a note on the Sandbox page linked above. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies

Hi Bloodofox. As we now have enough members, I have been getting ready to set up WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies and have posted some notes and random odds and ends in my sandbox. You can observe the current state of affairs here. I will be creating the project page in the next few days so that we can discuss the proposed elements. However, if you see anything that you feel requires immediate correction, feel free to contact me with the details. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've looked it over and it looks good so far. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes

Hi Bloodofox, I have started the work group, or task force, for runic studies.--Berig (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Berig, good to hear, I'll join! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bornholm and Copenhagen runestones

I'd absolutely write an article, or an article series on Bornholm runestones, or any other runestones that you can provide pictures of.--Berig (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll upload a bunch to Commons soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There'll be one main article that I'll call "Runestones of Bornholm" unless a better name is suggested. In order to keep the size down, I'll make two subordinate articles on the runestones that you find at two churches where they have found unusually many.--Berig (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just need some time to get around to sorting them, matching up their Rundata information, and uploading them. I'll drop you a note when I've added them to commons. The Pre-History section of the National Museum of Copenhagen finally re-opens very soon too (as Skadinaujo (talk · contribs) mentioned) and I'll be going by there soon to check it out with my camera. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You beat me to it

Nice work on the Aesir-Vanir war. I had intended to write it this weekend, but you got there first. There's only one thing I would have stressed. There should probably be more more information on Freyja's likely involvement since it appears to be a generally accepted theory among scholars nowadays.--Berig (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was surprised it wasn't made already and dug around for a while trying to see if it wasn't just orphaned somewhere. Agreed, there is the section about the Freyja/Gullveig that ought to be expanded to reflect this. As a side note, I am sold on the Freyja/Gullveig connection myself. It should be pretty easy for us to get this to GA-status as it probably meets all of the requirements already but it wouldn't hurt to expound more on the theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison Tiwaz - Irminsul

It might be sourcable. I know a few neopagans whom I could ask. It was stated in the old version as a just-so info. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the makeover BTW! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure! The article really needed attention and you've brought attention to it. :} There's still plenty to do. As a side note, from my experience, this modern heathen comparison is just one of many surrounding the Irminsuls and probably shouldn't given so much weight - just that it's been compared to the rune.

With that in mind, I wouldn't trust the Anglo-Saxon rune poem mention of the north star so much in place of Tiw as a god, it's been heavily Christianized (the Anglo-Saxons having been Christianized considerably earlier than the Scandinavians) and subsequently a lot of the Anglo-Saxon heathen lore we could have obtained from it seems to have been deboned. I think the name of the rune is enough for a direct connection (*tīwaz/*teiwaz) and considering that Tiw was such a major god prior to being dethroned by Woden in some way, it wouldn't be surprising if there was indeed such a connection between Tiw and the Irminsuls. Still, this is all speculation on my part and I wouldn't add any of it into the article without a source, of course. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Invitation

Interesting, but I...know nothing about that subject. xD;Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I just saw your comment somewhere, then your infobox about heathenry and thought I'd send a template your way. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Where, may I ask? :PAvnas Ishtaroth (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Ouroboros#Chrysopoeia_of_Cleopatra. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmyes. I love ouroboros a lot. In fact, I have a nice ornamental disc in my room consisting of three sets of two ouroboros each wrapped around each other in a dual infinity sign. :P Hmm, what's the plural for ouroboros? o_O;Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)