User talk:Bloodofox/2008

stub templates

Just as a general note: stub template usualy go on the bottom of an article, not the top. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I will keep that in mind in the future! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Troth

The Troth needs sourcing. Maybe you or someone you know could help with that? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Kathryn, I've since sourced the article per your request. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Our Exchange at Dab's arb.com

I was a little surprised at your insistance on having me name which nordicist editors dab had been in disputes with. Then I thought that you might think that I was referring to you. Only then did I check your user page and find out that you are interested in nordic subjects. Let me be the first to say that harbouring such an interest does not make one a nordic supremacist or a germanic nationalist. I was not thinking of you when I stated that, I didn't know you at all. But it is my clear impression that dab does engage in disputes wherever he sees content that seems biased towards some nationalist or fundamentalist bent and that he is always on the side of moderation and science. (I agree however that he is not always sufficiently polite in his handling of those issues, but that I have also stated in the necessary places).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I am sure you can now understand why I was so insistent considering my involvement in the arbcom since I presented evidence there and am the only editor involved outside of Dab that regularly edits anything relating to the subject matter you've mentioned. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't lumping me in there as I would obviously take issue with it if so. Thank you for taking the time to get in contact with me and clearing that up! :bloodofox: (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

for the record, I do not consider bloodofox a "nordicist" editor, and I found him reasonably amenable to criticism. Especially compared to the collection of problem editors that flocked to "my" arbitration case like so many vultures, he is in fact an exemplary editor, although that's hardly saying much. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Freyr

The article is a bit of a mess, but it certainly has a lot of information. Eventually we should try to cut down on the direct quotes and add more coherent prose, using secondary scholarly sources alongside the primary medieval ones. But I still think the current article provides a valuable service in giving access to almost all the primary sources in one place. Haukur (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to help. I'll take a look at it soon and see what I can do. You may, by the way, be interested in the discussion occurring at Talk:Gerichtslinde. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding information on the statue. Haukur (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should tie that in with mentions of Freyr statuettes in the sagas. Haukur (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I should have done it long ago. I do think the information should be added with the statue. I was not able to get to the museum in question this summer as we ended up going somewhere else instead when the opportunity presented itself but I will get there eventually and I'll photograph it and upload it if it's still on display at that time. As a side note, the National Museum of Denmark is opening up their Pre-History section early this Summer after an apparently extensive remodeling, so that will present some nice opportunities. Do you know of any other finds relating to Freyr? I've yet to see any other surviving depictions and none of my books mention any. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Flavius Claudius Iulianus

It was total irony. I just petitioned the page to get moved, and then you just boldly moved it anyway. Anyways soon an admin may/maynot move the page back. We need to be prepared to defend Iulian. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the article's status. I am not sure why his vindictive Christian title is being favored over his actual name there but, eventually, I am pretty sure logic will prevail. I am pretty sure he didn't call himself "Julius the Apostate" for obvious reasons. I'll do some cleaning on the article to get it more in line to standards and you are welcome to do the same. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion and survey has arose. please cast your vote Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Warwolf.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Warwolf.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Freyja

First, Sif and Freyja are 2 different cases. People make up a lot of things about Freyja. Why those quotes are needed? So that people won't make it up.

For example: Lokasenna. Loki says "you are a whore!". Freyja says "You are a liar". But some people just took Loki's words as "facts" and omit Freyja's words. So it's here so that some lazy people can find out what's actually being said.

For example: Hyndla's lay. Hyndla says Ottar is Freyja's lover. Freyja says it's not, and said about how he built her a shrine of stone and such, but people do not care. They just take Hyndla's word and say "Ottar is Freyja's lover" as a fact.

They are needed. 123.19.41.150 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We add information, we cite a reference. There's no need to completely reproduce the reference on the article. I'm well aware of the situation with Lokasenna and personally believe it to be a product of Christianization. However, when dealing with the subject we have to state someone has said this and then reference them. I can't simply write that this is the case. It's fine to put in a few quotes but it's very possible to go overboard, as is the case in the Freyja article right now. Summarize it instead of quoting several stanzas. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's only 12 stanzas of Thymrvistha. Deleting it won't help much. Leaving them their won't hurt anyone. Compared to how many there were at the beginning (around 6 months ago), it was trimmed A LOT already.

You see how people make up this: http://www.thorshof.org/brisskeg.htm Very funny. From a lame story invented by Christian priests to that. So germans are savages who worshipped a hooker, huh? Norsemen expect to die to serve a hooker, huh? They (germans and scandinavians) would point at their the statue and say "This is our great goddess, receiver of slain heroes. She's a hooker." Haha

123.19.41.150 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's way more than just stanzas from Thyrmvistha on that page, that's the problem. There are numerous stanzas from numerous poems - way too many. Navigating that article is a task due to the sheer amount of stanzas presented when it's completely unnecessary.

I am well aware about the amount of bullshit that gets propagated in these circles. Christians are generally responsible for this but, obviously, there's quite a lot of crystal-peddling new agers who want to make a book off of a quickly produced book that due exactly the same. It's unfortunate, as in Heathen movements priority should always be placed on source material, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I failed to understand why a story that say Freyja is Odin's concubine (contradict all older sources), that Loki stole the necklace and gave to Odin (contradict older sources, Heimdallr beat Loki), and Olaf Tryggvason's brave Christened men dissolve the pagan curse and stuffs. And some people say "it's a PAGAN MYTH". Stupidity? Deliberation? And it's written by PRIESTS, 400 yeras after Christianization at that. I am amazed that some people who are 100% Christian, but make websites and claim to be follower of Thor and stuffs, and make up stuffs about ancient religions.

Sif can have stanzas, why can't Freyja? She just happen to have more :) 123.19.41.150 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So in short, Freyja was a big goddess, many sources mention her, so each sources have a few stanzas quoted. It's inevitable. And it's good to be long (for knowledge and truth's sakes). Or do you want to reduce it to: "Freyja is a major goddess in Germanic Paganism. She is a hooker, goddess of sexual intercourse and prostitution. She has the necklace Brisingamen by selling her body to 4 filthy dwarves. Period." 123.19.41.150 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, since I've regularly edited this article for years and most articles relating to it, this is not something I would approve of. If you had done the slightest bit of research into my edit history, you would see that. Again, what I am saying is that there are simply too many quotes when they could be summarized to prose. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have been edited this article for years, then before, it's written: "Freyja got Brisingmen by having sex with 4 dwarves. Odin stole it to demand sex too." And some people who don't know about the subject would think that it's some Eddic poems shortened as prose. As I said, quoting some stanzas would prevent people from making things up. Example: If you change Lokasenna in to prose. Then "Loki calls Freyja a whore. Freyja calls Loki a liar". Then some clueless guys come up and say "what? what?" They would edit this and that. Leaving the stanzas as they are now is perfect. It's the strongest citation you can find. 123.19.41.150 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I obviously wouldn't approve of stating something like that as it's against policy. Sources should be appropriately referenced and cited - no exceptions. The same goes for the propaganda you're talking about. The massive swells of stanzas will be removed eventually due to the sheer amount of them and the fact that the article will continue to grow. The first thing to get cut are the frills. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else came around and did so, as it's pretty obvious. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the frills? Discuss. And show me the policies you have been talking about. 123.19.41.150 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy I refer to is WP:CITE. Frills as in anything that isn't necessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy odesn't say anything about stanzas. But we are not fighting each other here. As I wasted A LOT of time writing this article from a [POS] back then (yeah, 206,222 or 123 125 whatsoever is me), I think I deserve some respects. You have been keeping this article and cleaning it, so I shall respect you too. Can you give the list of what you want to remove, and I will look at it. 123.19.41.150 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see someone else editing these articles as well in a constructive manner and will gladly work with you. I am just saying that I think only the most important stanzas should be included and that most of them should just be removed. If we did a request for the article to be nominated as a "good article" they would probably say something about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When I finished reading this article (around 7 months ago), I have no clues about who is Freyja. All I know is that Freyja is a hooker, and it must be written somewhere in the Eddas that she is a hooker goddess (wrong conclusion) The article quote [nothing] back then, and it give people wrong conclusions. Then I read in the talk page that this article was nominated as a featured article and failed (and it deserved to fail). I have spent most of my time transforming this article since then, and it get frustrating sometimes. But you have been watching it so you know it's written by some IPs. I added many direct quotes from poems because before there were lots of wrong statements in the article. And you know that I have been removing some of them (a major trimming started by you back then, and I compromised). So now you can tell me what you consider "not necessary", and we will see about it. Ok? 123.19.41.150 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not German. I'm not Scandinavian. I don't follow Germanic Paganism. So I'm all for truth's sake. As long as it's conprehensive, accurate and informative, being a little long does not hurt. This article has been vandised less since I rewrite it. And I don't know how many people read it since then, but no one complained about it, so I take it that they find it OK. Most people don't read the Edda and are too lazy to click on the link provided to read, so all-in- one is good for them. If you find somethinf unneccessary, just say it in the talk page of the article. Or you can delete them yourself (I'll revert if I don't agree :) 123.19.41.150 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am specifically saying that the sections regarding Þrymskviða, Ægisdrekka or Lokasenna, and Hyndluljóð feature far too many quotations when they can be written out and prose. I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

If there was some misleading information regarding Sörla þáttr, which you keep referring to, I am glad if you fixed it. However, there's incorrect information fixed on Wikipedia all the time and this is nothing new. I am pretty sure many serious Heathens are "all for truth's sake". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Friends-01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Friends-01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sif

1.  GA 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Holt (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)

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)

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)

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)

I presume it would be "Ouroboroi"? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds weird. :PAvnas Ishtaroth (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

6/12 DYK

On 12 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Æsir-Vanir War, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates and noinclude tags

Greetings, I see you just went through and updated categories in several religion templates. Thanks for that work, however, in several instances you included a space between the bottom of the template and the start of the <noinclude> tag, as with this diff. In the future, please take care not to do this as this introduces a blank white space below the transcluded template. <noinclude> tags should be on the same line as the last element of the template, exactly as it was before your change. I'm now going back through and fixing these issues. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem and sorry about that. It seemed to me that there was no standard and it wasn't apparent to me that there was any sort of standard and I thought it better to just keep the tags separate, but obviously I was mistaken, and I'll keep that in mind in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Beowulf pages

Could I ask you to take a look at some of the recent edits on the Beowulf and Grendel's mother articles? Hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'll give the article a look over and see what I can do. Is there anything in particular you would like me to have a look at? And thanks, I hope you are doing well too. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry, I wasn't watching your talk page and only just saw your response. At the time I posted this, a new user was making edits and I wanted your opinion on them but this seems to have resolved itself. However, on the topic of these articles, I'm wondering what it would take to elevate Beowulf to at least a good article. The article has improved over time but it would be nice to push it to the next level - and it would be great to see it become a featured article. Just some thoughts, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I think the Beowulf article is definitely featured article material. First of all, we need to properly source all claims made on the article. We also need to dig through it and remove all the external links within the body of the article in favor of inline citations. I'll go through it again here soon and see what I can do. Once that's done, we can nominate it for WP:GA and see what they say as they'll probably have a lot more suggestions, and after that we can bring it through the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria process, during all of which I'll gladly help. Maybe we ought to cut to the chase and start applying the WP:FA criteria to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas - go ahead and let me know what you want me to do. I'm also wondering if we could find a few more Wikipedians who are experts on the subject to give it a once over. The topic is enormous with thousands of works of scholarship in numerous languages. FA status would mean that somehow we did justice to this thought which is a bit overwhelming to me. Do you know of an existing encyclopedic article on Beowulf (besides the intros to the Norton) - while we certainly don't want to copy them, it would be helpful to see how we should think of an FA version of this article. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly relate. It's definitely a mountain to tackle, and I constantly find myself side tracked with articles I've been meaning to getting around to write, so please pardon my wandering and speed. :} Right now, we ought to just make sure that everything is properly referenced, and we ought to go into these references and standardize them all in one format. As daunting as it is, it might be best if convert the references over to Harvard-style referencing with a "Notes" and "References" section as some of the references that are there now would certainly benefit from it. Then we ought to elect it for a GA review so we at least have it up to that standard. After we've satisfied GA criteria, we ought to then elect it for FA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great plan and no apologies. The WP is a volunteer project and people should contribute when and if they have the time and there are always many articles to look at. So, yes, I think this is a good place to begin and I've held it as a rule that a B article should go for GA first rather than FA. Since there is so much out there it is just overwhelming to think of how to do this properly but perhaps over time a method will sort itself out. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr and Irpa

On 24 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr and Irpa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for the nod on the Germanic Studies group :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

No problem and welcome. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to move Julian the Apostate

Within a week, I am going post a new request to move the article. Please be ready to come in with support again. Thegreyanomaly (talk)

Thank you for the notification. I will voice my opinion, but keep in mind nothing will change unless policy changes regarding Roman article name conventions. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted the request to move the page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr and Irpa

Sorry about adding the articles to the Reference section; I didn't realize that section is only for sources that are actually cited in the article. I've probably made the same mistake elsewhere. I'll try to add some substantive edits that draw on those two sources. Rsradford (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I am not sure what the exact policy on this is - if there even is one, but I am sure you understand the logical problem with referencing something not used as reference material. Some articles have a "further reading" section but, in these cases, it's better to just work in the material into the article as the relevance of said sections can often be disputable. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Golden Horns of Gallehus

Did you do the translation of the inscription? I'm not sure about 'lee guest or reputation guest'. German Wiki has 'famous guest' from i-e *klweos, (=Greek cleos), fame or reputation, probably the same as your Havamal quotation. Gastiz is i-e *ghosti, guest/host, 'potentially hostile stranger with whom one has a relation of guest-friendship'. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots has 'having famous guests'. "Famous stranger" might also do. I have no idea what a 'lee guest' would be. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Benjamin, the translation is not my work and I did not provide it. We should provide a referenced translation for the article, which would be easy enough to do. I am focused elsewhere on Wikipedia at the moment, but I will stop by and make sure referenced translations are in place there sometime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I pulled the earliest business. I was confusing it with the negau helmet 'harigasti teiva', which Mallory, 'Indo-Europeans' implies is the earliest. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be the same Meyer Schapiro?!

Of course it is, unless you mean your mate of that name. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - there was a mix up with the disambiguation page Meyer Shapiro while I was formatting the reference. I've since fixed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bracteate from Funen, Denmark (DR BR42)

I saw your image on picture peer review, loved it, and moved it to FPC. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am glad you like it. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm presuming that you'll want to officially "support" it (as nominator) - I don't think it's presumed by default. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know I could do that - I will do so. Thanks for the heads up and candor! :bloodofox: (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		In spite of our less than auspicious interactions in the past, I would like to recognize your valuable contributions to our coverage of Germanic topics. You have done some good work on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you, Dab. I certainly didn't expect that! I appreciate your feedback, and also your gentlemanly candor here despite our various disagreements in the past. I look forward to positive collaboration in the future with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Boxes

DO NOT WANT! Thanks for taking them out :) Haukur (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I don't like them either. So far, they are way too simplistic and cause far more misunderstandings than they solve. I am trying to figure out how to make them useful in this case but am drawing a blank.. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with no boxes at all but if you make good boxes that's certainly better than bad boxes. Haukur (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that they're pointless, and I am all for just removing them at this point. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent work

I'm impressed. You keep improving yourself as an editor. Haukur (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! As always, your assistance is most welcome, Haukur. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigyn DYK

The rules at the top of the page are pretty clear: "be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles whose main body text has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable). You could ask for others to make an exception, preferably on WT:DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. However, it says nothing about completely rewritten articles. I was wondering how this applied to completely rewritten articles for future reference. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Norse history and culture

Hi! I've left a message on the project talk, but thought, since the talk isn't particularly active, that I'd send out a few talk page messages as well.

Basically, I've taken on the WikiProject section of the Wikipedia:Signpost, and would like to interview everyone about WP:WikiProject Norse history and culture, preferably on the talk page. I'd then edit it down a bit into a newspaper-style article, and link the original discussion at the bottom.

If you'd be interested in participating, could you let me know, either on my talk page, or at the Wikiproject's? Thanks!

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shoemaker. I've taken a look at the interview and will reply to the questions soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two stanzas

"Outside of these two stanzas, this poem is otherwise lost."

We don't know for a fact that the stanzas are from a longer poem. Also worth mentioning is that there is a stylized Latin translation of them in Gesta Danorum. Haukur (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. I have pulled the reference and the statement from the article. The Gesta Danorum reference is something I intend to add when I have some time - it definitely should be there. Of course, you're welcome to do so too. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Right? Left? What's it gonna be?

Does this make me look fat?

Check out User:Haukurth/Sander's Edda. Týr's been flipped! I guess they decided Saltza chopped off the wrong hand. Haukur (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, looking at the signature, you're right. I wonder what that's about. As a side note, I think this image competes with his depiction of Heimdallr (with one of the Gallehus horns) in absurdity. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The engraver's signature is straight so the decision to flip must have been taken at that stage.

I think Heimdallr still takes the biscuit. Presumably he's holding up his hand by his ear and concentrating on hearing but it just looks, I don't know, camp? Haukur (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to that he's vacantly adjusting his sheep-hat. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, wouldn't want the sheep hat to slope, that would just be silly!

Another interesting image is Image:Ed0013.jpg. It looks wonderfully idyllic, like Thor and Jörmungandr are about to have a cup of tea together. The sea is even still. Unfortunately the scan doesn't do it justice. Haukur (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The ram's expression really sets it off. Images like the one you've linked to last time really make me appreciate Mårten Eskil Winge's depictions. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Winge is excellent. Nyström was a gifted artist (check out some of her postcards) but her Edda illustrations are considered some of her least successful works. Haukur (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sander's Edda again

Today I photographed most of the images from the book (not all, I had limited time and couldn't be bothered with every single doodle). Compared with proper scans my pictures are pretty crappy (off-centered and curvy) but you can make out much more details than on the versions we've been working with. The whole batch is around 100 MB - do you have an e-mail address where you could receive that? There's some interesting stuff in there including things we don't already have, e.g. an image of Víðarr and Váli as well as one of Áslaug. Haukur (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds excellent - I have sent you a letter. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ed0044.jpg

Maybe this is yet another Nyström. It looks like her style and the signature kinda looks like it starts with her J N - but if so, what's the extra stuff in the signature? I can't figure that out. Haukur (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. I have a hard time making this out at all. It could possibly be a notification that it's an illustration of her illustration or the other way around, sort of like "after such-and-such.."? I would really have to see a higher resolution to make any sense of it. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scultpures

Those sculptures have me stumped. There's a rather famous one of Baldr by Fogelberg and another of Loki and Höðr by Qvarnström. See here: [1] These are eerily similar to the etchings in Sander's Edda but still clearly not the same works. I wonder what's going on. Sander's list of artists doesn't seem to have any sculptors. Maybe those etchings don't really represent actual sculptures - maybe they're just takes on Fogelberg's and Qvarnström's works. I don't know. Georg Forssell made the etchings but the other signature there is illegible. Haukur (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Are these based off of the statues that used to be in the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities? I haven't seen them in person, and they certainly don't seem to be any statues I've seen in Denmark. If they are indeed the same statues as the ones I've mentioned that once existed in the Swedish museum, some of these depictions could simply be more technical depictions of the statues whereas others could be more romantic versions influenced by the statues. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Nornir again

Well, three days since I told you I "almost certainly could" identify the artist and still that image is one of the last stubborn holdouts. I have one trick left up my sleeve but if that doesn't work out I'll have to throw in the towel. Heading for the library now. Haukur (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that article didn't tell me either so I'm crying uncle. Haukur (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not much help here - it seems we've reached a dead end for now. I suppose our current descriptor will have to do! Maybe it will come up in the future when digging around for something else. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It very well may. There is this fairly recent flashy edition of the Prose Edda which I once borrowed from the library. I scanned e.g. Image:Idunn and Bragi by Blommer.jpg and Image:Dagr by Arbo.jpg from it. Maybe it was there, I need to check that book again. Haukur (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, can't find it there either. Haukur (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Groa och Heid.JPG

I uploaded my photo of that one with a verbose description. Ideally we'd do this for all of them. Will take a lot of time, though. Haukur (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is better at this size - this or this? They're both distorted, of course. Mine has in effect been squashed but the resolution is good. The one from Runeberg has the right proportions but the resolution is bad. Haukur (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

While the image is blurry at full resolution, it's certainly an improvement from the little thumbnail we had there before. Until we can get a scan of the image, I am sure it will do just fine. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Urðarbrunnr DYK

On 9 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Urðarbrunnr, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Translations

One note about translations - it is tempting to rely on the most recent ones but when we need to quote the translations extensively it is probably more prudent to use public domain translations; fair use only goes so far. I typically use Brodeur for the Prose Edda and Thorpe for the Poetic Edda except in cases where I see that the part I want to quote from them is badly inaccurate. Brodeur is usually not bad for the prose and he's all right for some of the Eddic stanzas. When it comes to the more involved skaldic stanzas he's often far off the mark and then it's time to bring in Faulkes.

Thorpe is actually surprisingly accurate. When I did a little study and graded seven stanzas from the Hávamál I gave Thorpe 59 points out of 70 but I only gave 53 points to Larrington, the runner-up.[2] For a critique of Larrington's Völuspá translation see this post:[3] and the following discussion. Haukur (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good point and something I've wondered about. Whenever possible, I try to avoid quoting for this very reason, but when it comes to poetic stanzas, as you know, converting to prose is very troublesome. Fortunately, the sources-first setup we've been using allows for some easy swapping out of translations without much problem, which I am perfectly OK with anyone doing (preferably as long as we can avoid "thy," "thou," etc!). As I am a bit wary of HTML transcriptions, perhaps we ought to reference via Google Books in the case of Thorpe? For example: Thorpe, Benjamin (Trans.) (1905). The Elder Edda of Saemund Sigfusson. Norrœna Society. A shame about the Saemund Sigfusson business though.

Your comparisons here are pretty interesting and educational - I'll see if I can get a print copy to work with. Thanks for the post about Larrington's translation. It seems to confirm a number of things I've suspected about it in comparing it with other translations, and brought up a lot of interesting other points. Obviously, despite Larrington's edition being the latest English translation of the Poetic Edda out there, if half of this critique is correct, it obviously has some issues. It seems to me that we're still waiting for that really great English translation of the Poetic Edda. As I have no doubt that the demand for it is greatly increasing, perhaps it won't be that long from now when it appears. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I just reread my translation comparison article. I'm slightly embarrassed about the presentation and language but I still think my conclusions are basically sound. You should, however, keep in mind that I'm no authority figure. I still have no academic credentials in this discipline - though I'm working on my BA thesis now.

That post about Larrington's translation is based on a scathing review in an academic publication. It goes a bit further than that article and some of it is nitpicking but yeah, there are lots of problems with that translation.

There are scans of Thorpe's edition here: [4]

It's true that there is still no English translation of the Poetic Edda that is a) complete, b) reasonably accurate and c) in plain modern language. Dronke's translation is accurate but it's not complete (and it's murderously expensive). Larrington's is not accurate. Thorpe's is reasonably accurate but it's obsolete. I should note, though, that the language of the Eddic poems was never plain language - even at their time of composition it was elevated poetic language. Haukur (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see that the academic review of Larrington is available online. It's in Saga Book 1998, pp. 92-95. The introduction briefly discusses the several English translations.[5] Haukur (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Particularly with what one would consider our English language "authority figures" to be in these matters in mind, I'm generally far less interested in someone's credentials in comparison to what sort of work they're putting out and, for that matter, what they have to say. So, I particularly appreciate your openness here and I am sure anyone else reading the work we're putting up here does as well. I think it's pretty evident that, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that an accurate -and- "poetic" translation of the Old Norse material into English is not possible. The sooner we can get someone who knows what they're doing with the language to acknowledge this fact and publish a new translation the better. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An old book

I suspect Image:Idun and Thiazi.jpg is from this book: [6] Unfortunately it's not available in public libraries in my country, I'd be interested to see the other illustrations in it. Haukur (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrm - I've wondered about this image before, and I'm also interested in seeing more of these illustrations. That's quite a tag they're asking for that one. I'll see what I can find with some digging around. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Check my talk page - looks like we already have a person on the case :) Haukur (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bray's Edda

I've uploaded three images from it today. See commons:Category:W._G._Collingwood. Haukur (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Odin hung

I am freyr-Ottar, you edited my comments on the basis that you assert Odin was hung - he wasnt.

Not one text anywhere says he was 'hung' eg with a rope - all the texts in fact relate to him being hung from Yggdrasil eg impaled with Gungnir.

This is why it says he was wounded to himself with the spear - the spear impaled him.

Odin was impaled on the tree as per so many northen gods eg Esus. The rope hanging story is a misinterpretation of the texts and symbolism by literaliists not symbolists.

The word 'hung' relates to the fact that when viewed from Earth Cygnus/Odin on the summer solstice Odin appears upside down eg as the joker depicted on the tarot card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.228.234 (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. See stanza 138 of the Poetic Edda poem Hávamál:

I know that I hung on a windy tree

nine long nights,

wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin,

myself to myself,

on that tree of which no man knows

from where its roots run. (Larrington)

Odin quite clearly states that he hung himself. View this as you like, but we have a policy against inserting personal interpretations into articles: Wikipedia:No original research. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My sources say this: "For nine days and nights he hung, pierced by a spear"...Yggur (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GANs

The other 2 GANs that you nominated have the same problem as Ask and Embla: WP:LAYOUT violation. short 1 - line sections.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I will go through and reduce them. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The oil field and such

I think that if the phenomenon named after the mythological figure is notable in itself then that's disambiguation material and if it isn't then it isn't normally worth mentioning. Presumably there is nothing on the oil field inspired by Njörðr other than the name. Haukur (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mythology seems to be a trend there. Category:Natural gas fields in Norway Haukur (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure it's basically just like a moon or some other object named after a mythological figure. If anything, it illustrates that the figure is considered culturally relevant enough to reference, so I figured I may as well include it in there. Once we have a bigger list of depictions and direct references, pruning these little mentions out may be a good move. Simek seems to feel that the ship was worth mentioning, so I guess things are pretty "bare-bones" when it comes to modern Njörðr references. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Watch out for Troll gas field! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yuck, troll gas, I bet that smells terrible!

Those cultural influence sections are really almost impossible to write. Can we compromise on ship in, oilfield out? Haukur (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I am fine by that. I am also fine with a "something more than a name" policy, it's just that the fact that things are being named after the subject does say something of its relevance in modern society, and that can be of interest to the reader, especially if they're outside of Scandinavia as it's not going to be immediately obvious to them that there's a ton of stuff named after many facets of Norse mythology there. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've got a point there. I don't really have anything to add, just thinking about this makes my head hurt. My best effort at writing a section like this was at Battle_of_Svolder#Legacy. Haukur (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorting through the pop culture references is pretty daunting. I would just assuming say such-and-such in "paintingname" (year) by artistname, and so on, then just list some more references, then go into another medium. I did this with the Ragnarök article, but I somehow doubt we're going to be finding any ships or oil fields named after Ragnarök. ;} Well, shall I revert your revert about the oil fields and ships back, or what do you think we should do? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think that oil field is a somewhat anti-climactic end to the article but do whatever you think best. If Simek has the ship then I'm okay with the ship. Haukur (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I will leave it as it is unless someone else changes, I prefer a list of artistic depictions any day to a list of oil fields! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with Álfheimr

Do your sources clarify what type of elves specifically (Light or Dark)are the inhabitants of Alfheimr, my sources say Light elves.Yggur (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 17 of Gylfaginning in the Prose Edda says that light elves live in Álfheimr, whereas dark elves live in the ground. What sources are you using? You'll save yourself a lot of trouble by going straight to the primary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Alvíss and Þrúðr

Image:Alvíss and Þrúðr by Frølich.jpg Here you go! Haukur (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the subject matter, what an odd and charming image! :bloodofox: (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is! She's all ready to elope with the dwarf and then her dad bursts in with some racist crap about "white nose". Dear me. Haukur (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I have completed the GA reviews of Sigyn (with the full review located at Talk:Sigyn/GA1) and Urðarbrunnr (with the full review located at Talk:Urðarbrunnr/GA1). I have put both articles on hold to allow you time to address a few minor comments. If you have any questions, you can let me know on the review pages or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to look these articles over. I will have a look at your comments and respond in turn. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for Norse deities

Can be an infobox for Norse deities be designed or existant? If you are uncomfortable with infobox coding, please let me know what fields like "Image", "Name", "Spouse/Consort", "Texts related", "Deity of" can be included so i can design it.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempts at making infoboxes for these articles have been put forth before, and we decided not to use them. The problem is that some figures can vary quite considerably by their source in Norse mythology and Germanic paganism. If an article is well written, it will state the situation clearly in its introduction, and then issues can be dealt with clearly within the body of the article. Adding a template would just needless double information or confuse matters. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bloodofox - it looks to me like additional complexity and problems with not enough benefits to make it worthwhile. Haukur (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Master builder

I suppose Image:Master builder by Robert Engels.jpg should go to Svaðilfari. Personally I'd have the horse drag the rock around. Haukur (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. However, when you're a master-builder thurs ahead of schedule, maybe you want to get off the horse and rub in your wall-making skills from time to time. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing Julleuchter

I am trying to be truthfull and not add any infromation to the article that I beleve is not relevent to the subject. I simply ask that you go to the talk page and state any problems that you have with the article before you go and deleate anything. I am open to changing the article to work out any problems it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.35.180 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort and I will be happy to help you as much as I can. The major problem is that the archaeological basis for these lamps seems very shady at the moment. What we need is identification on these lamps as having some sort of authentic archaeological basis. As for connections to Freyja, this is obviously theory and should be treated as such. Asatru publications are generally not the best source for this sort of thing; if they don't list sources, you know there's a problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to work on finding more information about the archaeological basis. I think the information that I gathered from Hjuka Harugari talking about the German efforts and research dating from around the early to mid 1900's is at least something that helps contribut to that. He talks about the groups that lived in the area that the origional lamps were found and he covers the controversy over much of the infromation attached to the lamps about their history. As you said the infromation is very shady and I think it probably will stay that way because it has been that way since the lamps were first discovered. I also have no problem with treating the connections to Freyja as a theory unless I gather some infromation that proves otherwise. I am still researching infromation about the lamps. I would like to put back the infromation about the 1888 Runa Magazine article. I have been looking for infromation about Runa and it’s creater Johan August Strindberg. I was using the German Wikipedia Julleuchter to back up the infromation for the lamp in the Runa article being in a museum. I could leave that out of the article if it is not a good enough source. Also are these two things that you mentioned the only problems you have with the article? I would like a numbered list of everything you have problems with in the Julleuchter article. That way I can talk the problems over with you and try to work on them instead of just having infromation deleated from the article. :nicholasweed: —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation when confusion, speculation and assumption meet. From what I can tell so far, some fragments of pottery may have been found in Germanic territories - but exactly what period they date from and what their purpose was hasn't been clear, or what they even looked like, for that matter. Figuring out what collection they're in would be mighty helpful.

From what I can tell so far, some sort of connection to Yule has been assumed and, apparently, also Freyja in some modern Neopagan currents (probably do the heart - but was the heart on the original pottery? Another question..). As it stands, until we find anything solid linking it to an actual find and the situation is clear, it's better to just say who claimed what, where, when, and leave it at that. Like anywhere else on Wikipedia, everything needs to be solidly referenced or it needs to be removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I’ll try reworking the article to say who claimed what, where, and when about the information. I would just like to have some time to do this first with out having anything deleted. I am open to suggestions about how to rework the article but I would like to keep as much information that I have gathered about the lamps in the article as possible. :nicholasweed: —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't resist!

I know it's awful, but maybe it'll inspire someone to find a better version. Haukur (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gosforth Cross Víðarr detail.jpg

God of dentists, anyone? Haukur (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! That detail from the Gosforth Cross will be very handy to have for several articles. I also agree about the Loki and Sigyn picture - I think it's the best of the bunch that we have, and definitely deserves prime footing on the Norse Mythology article when we get a good version of it! Bringing the Norse Mythology article up to GA-status is a long term goal of mine as well - there we can really showcase some of the finer fruits of our labor. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another. Haukur (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetic Edda template

Good job on the Poetic Edda template, a better overview was really needed. I finished the job you started with swapping the templates, I think I got all of them. –Holt T•C 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent and thanks! If someone didn't beat me to it, I had planned to do it in chunks - thanks for going the extra mile. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I award you this barnstar for you endless stream of Nordic mythology-related articles that pass themselves through the GA process. No other editor delivers such comprehensive quality in their nominations, making your articles a dream to review. Thanks for making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Arsenikk (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the medal and the kind words. It's my pleasure, and I appreciate the time you've taken to review and comment on my nominations - they've been very helpful! I look forward to future collaboration. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Valhalla

On 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valhalla, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK on main page

On 15 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sinthgunt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--well done Victuallers (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. did younknow that anyone can hand out the credits like this? Victuallers (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sumarr and Vetr

On 19 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sumarr and Vetr, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hjúki and Bil

On 26 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hjúki and Bil, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ZetaZeroAlfa

Hi. The fact that ZetaZeroAlfa are a political, neofascist rock band (probably, with SottoFasciaSemplice and Hobbit, the most prominent Italian one) is well established and they do not make a mystery of it (they are quite proud of that, in fact). Their group leader, Gianluca Iannone, was a candidate for Fiamma Tricolore and currently he is the leader of CasaPound Italia, a neofascist political organization. You can google a lot of Italian links about that, or read the following books (again in Italian): Domenico di Tullio, Osa! Centri sociali di Destra (Castelvecchi 2006) ; Ugo Maria Tassinari, Naufraghi (Immaginapoli 2007). You can find an academic study on the radical right online network here, including the ZZA website on such a network. I will be happy to find further information in the future. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Another example is the following interview on Novopress (a neofascist news site): Q: Siamo arrivati all’ultima domanda, quasi rituale: quali sono i tuoi modelli e le tue fonti d’ispirazione? Grazie del tempo concessoci ed un grande in bocca al lupo per le prossime elezioni e per tutte le tue attività.

A: Benito Mussolini rappresenta per me una fonte inesauribile di ispirazione ma aggiungerei alla lista Alessandro Pavolini, Ettore Muti, Geronimo, Ezra Pound, Tyler Durden piu' i classici.

that translated makes: Q: We came to the last, almost ritual, question: what are your models and inspiration sources? Thanks for the time you conceded us and good luck for the next elections and all your activities.

A: Benito Mussolini represent an endless source of inspiration for me, but I would add to the list Alessandro Pavolini, Ettore Muti, Geronimo, Ezra Pound and Tyler Durden, plus classics --Cyclopia (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but all it needs is a citation where the band calls themselves "neo-fascist" or "fascist", or it needs to be reworded to state that they have been called "neo-fascist" or "fascist" per WP:PROVEIT for very obvious reasons. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I posted that stuff on your talk page exactly to discuss it. I will read the guidelines and see what I can do. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the racist, sick, and anti-Muslim images you intend to promote.

Why do you insist to promote this BLATANT racism? You even went so far as to call me a vandal. 75.62.40.223 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Read WP:CENSOR. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Barnstokkr

On 23 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barnstokkr, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wow, GA before hitting DYK! I never get GA review that fast. Royalbroil 17:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The reviews don't always come in so quick! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Bloodofox, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's always a pleasure, and you're very welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Loki image we talked about

Snake realizes the gig is up

Unfortunately it will have to wait 8 years to be moved to Commons but we can have it here now. Haukur (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Man versus reptile! Those old illustrators certainly enjoyed depicting Loki with that snake. As I mentioned earlier, this will be handy for the Loki rewrite. I'm looking forward to the rest! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My assessment drive

Hi, I have started to assess the articles in the Norse history and culture project, and the articles A to E are now finished. If you feel that I have wrongly assessed any of them, don't hesitate to change the assessment.--Berig (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the notification, and good work! :bloodofox: (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sinmara DYK

Hi. I thought I would respond here so that you get my message asap. My objection to your Did You Know hook for Sinmara is simply that there is no specific footnote for the statement that she is a female companion of so-and-so. If you put a footnote on that statement in the article's lead, containing a page reference to one of your general references, I'll remove my objection. They just seem to demand full footnote citations for the did you know hooks, rather than general reference lists at the end of the article. - Mark 05:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Aha, so that is what you were referring to. It seems I didn't make it clear enough in the article where Sinmara is listed as Surtr's companion, but it is now very clearly stated there. Please see: [7] (reference 5). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Sinmara

On 18 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sinmara, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons category

Hi there, I've been thinking about creating a category on commons that covers all illustrators of Norse mythology etc, but I'm not sure what to call it. "Illustrators on Norse mythology" would exclude such lovely images as those Merseburger illustrations by Doepler, and other images like them. "Illustrators on Germanic mythology", perhaps? And is the language correct? –Holt T•C 21:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be a handy category for us, and that "Illustrators of Germanic mythology" would probably be the most appropriate title. As you can see, we're adding more and more artists to the list, and being able to group them together would be particularly handy, a fine idea! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Old English Gospel of Nicodemus

On 26 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Old English Gospel of Nicodemus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Valhalla

I have very little knowledge on Norse mythology, just a little question, is Valhalla also called Walhalla? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not in English. In German w has the value of v and v has the value of f. Therefore one encounters "Walhalla" rather than "Valhalla" (as Valhalla would be pronounced something like Falhalla in German) and "Walküre" rather than "Valkyrie" (as this would result in Falkyrie). :bloodofox: (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused because of the caption of Image:Walhalla (1896) by Max Brückner.jpg. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi! Sorry about my revert of your recent edit to Magic sword - I clicked the wrong link by accident. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! No problem at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sinmara

I'd just like to echo Cirt and Haukur's thoughts on the GA review and say: well done regardless! The article is an in-depth analysis of Sinmara but is inherently restricted as she is so obscure. This may not be rated as a Good Article but it's a very good article in my opinion anyway. Well done. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you like it (and I'm glad it's being read!). I always appreciate getting feedback. Sinmara is definitely an obscure one, and I look forward to the eventual expansion of the article to GA standards. I'm always curious about what else I can dig up in these dusty corners. Thanks again for the note! :bloodofox: (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamund

Hi Bloodofox, please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamund. It's a stub that could be expanded a lot, but Erik the Bikeman has nominated it for deletion.--Berig (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Berig. Good to see that it will remain despite my inability to respond sooner. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wayland Smith tag removal

I have never added any such tags to an article, simply because I think they make articles look unnecessarily spurious and messy. I find it much more constructive to simply rewrite the article adding inline citations to the sources I have at hand.--Berig (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Response posted to your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berig&curid=6884486&diff=261092686&oldid=261091837). :bloodofox: (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer {{fact}} tags, since they indicate what particular users consider problematic.--Berig (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, on re-reading the article, I decided to revert myself. The Old Norse part looks worrisome indeed.--Berig (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. We'll get the article up to where it needs to be in time! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)