Talk:World Mill

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Mythology

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Bottom‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Added references to Undersökningar i Germanisk Mythologi, so people can check out for themselves a prominent discussion of the World Mill.

How are we to deal with the quote-doctoring imported from the Rydberg article?

I see one of the editors from the Victor Rydberg article who was misrepresenting the content of Clive Tolley's work there via a deceptively "doctored" quote has taken up the same falsification of her sources here. What procedures are available to deal with this sort of outright lying in the text of a Wikipedia article? Explaining what Tolley actually says, and presenting his full, undoctored quote obviously is not adequate, since the altered version and related misrepresentations will promptly be reinserted into this article. Any suggestions? Rsradford (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverting to and fro between two fixed versions is not fruitful. The problems with one version need to be raised, tagged and resolved by compromise solutions step by step. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agreed on point one. Point two seems difficult, given that the two versions are polar opposites, and one of them can only be maintained by suppressing or altering what Tolley's article actually says. How do you recommend proceeding toward a compromise solution? Rsradford (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]