User talk:Jack the Giant-Killer

Please be aware that you have been named in an active COI matter here involving the Viktor Rydberg article. Doc Tropics 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling remarks at Talk:Viktor Rydberg

Hello Jack. Please be aware that long diatribes against other editors may be found puzzling by others, who are not quite sure why you are unhappy. A number of editors have been working on the Viktor Rydberg article and they seem to be allowing the Reaves translations to remain in the bibliography. I hope this addresses your concerns. WP:CIVIL is a value that all of us benefit from. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting material without discussion

Hello Jack. Your recent edits at Viktor Rydberg appear to be deleting material from the article without discussion. Your changes also seem to be against the consensus of the other editors on Talk and at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please explain your rationale for these deletions at Talk:Viktor Rydberg. Since the discussion there has been contentious, we would appreciate it if all Talk page participants avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, you wrote:

"If you don't think the new material is appropriate, explain your position on Talk. If you continue with your promotional editing, your account may be blocked without further notice."

Once I have posted on Talk, what is considered appropriate to edit? I can easily make additons to the entry without editing Mr. Radford's factual contributions.

What do you mean "promotional editing"? I have nothing to promote. Mr. Radford however has made another attempt to insert his seedy internet article and references to his website, in an effort to promote his online asatru activities. If you review my edits, you will see that I have contributed a significant amount of factual and biographical material to the article over time. Since most of my work was done anonymously, this is reflected in the history. You appear to be able to track my IP address, so hopefully you can see my contributions, made long before Mr. Radford came onboard. He has made all kinds of accusations against me,many of which I have chosen to ignore in the interest of improviong this article and the others I contribute to.

COI block warning

Hello Jack. Under WP:COI,

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

I'm asking you to stop deleting material from Viktor Rydberg that was created through a consensus discussion at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If you don't think the new material is appropriate, explain your position on Talk. If you continue with your promotional editing, your account may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed,

I just noticed your reference to this page on the Viktor Rydberg talk page. This is not a page I visit regularly. At 62, I am not particularly internet savy.

I'm confused by what you mean by a concensus of editors. As far as I can see, the only one continuously posting negative scholarship to the site is RSRadford. Frankly, I do not look at who did the editing, but the edit itself. I have not kept track of who said what.

Mr. Radford is well-known in pagan circles as a Rydberg-hater. He has been very vocal about it over the years. A search-engine search for Radford and Rydberg especially on pagan talk-forums will demonstrate his commitment. Don't you find odd that, while championing a NPOV, he created a new section titled scholarship on Rydberg's mythology and populated it with 4 negative quotes dating from 1974, and 3 from the 1990s? Rydberg's works are well over 100 years old and this is was all he could find? 4 negative citations? No 'A' for effort there. Obviously, there is much more, both for and against.

Also, what is Rydberg's "Mythology" exactly? Rydberg wrote at least 5 works on mythology and several articles. Which one is Radford refering to? Obviously, the only one in English for the last 120 years. My contention is that it is impossible to accurately evaluate a work you have only read half of. Few if any English lnaguage scholars have read the work in it's entirety, because half of it was only availabelin Swedish until recently. Swedish and German scholars however have. What is Wikipedia's policy on this, when most of the criticism is in other lanaguages?

My aim here is to help create an encyclopedia article on the Swedish poet, scholar and mythologist Viktor Rydberg. Mr. Radford has continuously weighed the article with negative material regarding Rydberg's mythological works, in disproportionate amounts. I have striven to seek a balance. In my opinion, Radford has encouraged moderator intervention and editorial oversight in hopes of pushing his extreme views regarding Rydberg's mythological works into the article. Now he is requesting that his hit-piece "The Rydberg Religion" be included as a reference!

Please check into the "Lotte Motz" entry as well. Radford has been active there as well, deleting my edits wholesale, and throwing slurs— so far no moderator has intervened. Strangely, Radford has not called for moderator intervention there.

How can we effectively resolve this matter? I feel that Mr. Radford is harassing me, believing me to be someone I am not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lotte Motz. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Hi, please be aware I have read your message at 11:00 pm Friday evening EST. In the future I will edit the site. For the record, I find it frustrating attempting to reconstruct large amounts of material that Mr. Radford has deleted, and thus resorted to the revert in an effort to get him to edit the material rather than simply delete it. I will not do so in the future. Thank you.

Hello Jack. If you want to re-draft portions of the article, I suggest that you create your preferred version of one or more sections and leave them on the article Talk page for review. That way we can see them and comment on them without the danger of a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, that sounds good, can we do the same for the Viktor Rydberg page? Again, I strongly object to a section on Scholarship, singling out one of the author's many works, and populating it with 4 negative quotes, 1 of them an out-of-context repeat and another unrelated to the work in question.

Quotation convention

Re Lotte Motz [1], note WP:PUNC: Wikipedia uses the "logical quotation" system, with punctuation inside quotes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lotte Motz. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Consider this a last warning. If you revert again, you will be blocked. Please resolve the discussion on the talk page; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, can you clairfy. As far as I know, I haven't made any reverts to the LM page since the last warning. I re-edited the material, and added additonal material as well. Is this considered a revert? I was reacting to an editor who was doing blind reverts; and did 3 in a 24 hr. period. Regardless, I will abide by your request. I am happy to see the entry under protection, because the other editor was out-of-control, in my opinion. Thank you.Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello Jack. Could you clarify something for me please: Is the Wikipedia account Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) an alternate account of yours? CIreland (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an absurd claim by RSRadford, a hostile editor on the Viktor Rydberg entry. Who are you and why are you even giving it any credence? The guy is a vandal and a nutjob. Check out his website: http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/ He is using Wikipedia as an extention of his pagan propoganda machine, and the overseer of the entry is allowing him to do it. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Without any implication about the correct content of the article, you must moderate your language at Lotte Motz, Consider this a formal warning that another edit like [2] will not be tolerated. You must just refer to the article and the edit, not the editor. I shall block you if this continues. (be aware I am watching the other editor as well.) DGG (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

You are being discused at WP:ANI, the administrators noticeboard. Smith Jones (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

1 month off for your persistent disruption, personal attacks, edit-warring, etc. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Ellis Davidson

Unfortunately I've had to revert your edits to the article because they appear to be a direct copyright violation of this article. I suggest that you read this WP guidance, and then re-edit the text of the Wikipedia article so that it paraphrases the copyright article in an acceptable way, and cites its source. If not, I'll get round to doing it myself some time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

html Illustrations for La Mythologie Du Rhin ("Myths of the Rhine") by M. Schele de Vere, 1874]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasted edit

Hi, I saw you made this copy pasted edit. Please edit it or paraphrase it as this infringes on copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_Ivaldi&oldid=267700596. Chacabangaso (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind it was 14 years ago lmao Chacabangaso (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]