User talk:Bloodofox

Hello! Please note that if you leave a post at the bottom of the page, I will also respond to it on this page. Thank you for taking the time to get in contact with me.

Archives

/Archive I /Archive II

Template:nine worlds

Hi Bloodofox, I am glad that you have made the template. I have been thinking of it myself, and I have a few suggested changes. What do you think of these alternative versions? I personally prefer the closeup of the runes a:miþkarþi since it refers to Midgard beyond any doubt.--Berig 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, I quite like it as it is now. I have made it slimmer so it allows more text on its left and it makes the picture fit better.--Berig 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, change it as you see fit, though I personally would prefer that we went over the green rather than the fuschia if I had a choice between the two. Also, perhaps the depiction of the World Tree is more appropriate as an indicator of the whole? I am thinking we should maybe do a World Tree one that encompasses the various creatures and shows how they worlds are layered, if possible. It seems some templates are able to portray a tree-like form. :bloodofox: 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given it some consideration and I am quite happy with the template as it is now. Well done!--Berig 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia

1. Þrvðheimi

2. Ydalir heita

3. Valascialf heitir

4. Sacqvabeccr heitir enn fiorþi

5. Glaðsheimr heitir enn fimti (Midgard)

6. Þrymheimr heitir enn setti

7. Breiðablik ero in siavndo

8. Himinbiorg ero en atto

9. Folcvangr er inn nivndi

Ninum 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ninum. I am not sure what you are trying to tell me here. Please keep it in English as this is the English Wikipedia. :bloodofox: 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nine worlds is defined in Voluspa

2. Jotuns I remember

early born,

those in old

foster me have.

Nine cities,

nine dwellings,

a sacred large tree

before ground below.

The names of the nine first dwellings is defined in Grimnesmal

1. Trudhome is the first dwelling

2. Ydales the second dwelling

3. Selectionledge the third

4. Hollowriver the fourth

5. Gladshome the fifth - centre (Midgard)

6. Stronghome the sixth

7. Wideview is the seventh

8. Heavenfort is the eighth

9. Folkvang is the ninth

These are The Nine First Dwellings of the Norse Edda. Ninum 16:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are mistaken, Ninum. These are the locations of halls associated with various deities and events, not the Nine Worlds held together by the World Tree. :bloodofox: 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word Worlds is never used in Edda in plural form, so the reference to the nine places is homes as in heimar, the word World is used to define the place you and me dwell on, so I refrased the line accordingly: These are The Nine First Dwellings of the Norse Edda. When they travell to Muspellsheimen from Norway, they use a boat, not a spaceship. Ninum 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what this has to do with the Nine Worlds as mentioned in the Prose Edda, specifically in Gylfaginning.. Here is the etymology for the English term "world":

World

O.E. woruld, worold "human existence, the affairs of life," also "the human race, mankind," a word peculiar to Gmc. languages (cf. O.S. werold, O.Fris. warld, Du. wereld, O.N. verold, O.H.G. weralt, Ger. Welt), with a literal sense of "age of man," from P.Gmc. *wer "man" (O.E. wer, still in werewolf; see virile) + *ald "age" (see old). Originally "life on earth, this world (as opposed to the afterlife)," sense extended to "the known world" (e.g. "Greatest Show on Earth"), then to "the physical world in the broadest sense, the universe" (c.1200). In O.E. gospels, the commonest word for "the physical world," was Middangeard (O.N. Midgard), lit. "the middle enclosure" (cf. yard), which is rooted in Gmc. cosmology. Gk. kosmos in its ecclesiastical sense of "world of people" sometimes was rendered in Goth. as manaseþs, lit. "seed of man." The usual O.N. word was heimr, lit. "abode" (see home). Words for "world" in some other I.E. languages derive from the root for "bottom, foundation" (cf. Ir. domun, O.C.S. duno, related to Eng. deep); the Lith. word is pasaulis, from pa- "under" + saule "sun." Original sense in world without end, translating L. sæcula sæculorum, and in worldly. L. sæculum can mean both "age" and "world," as can Gk. aion. Worldwide is from 1632. World power in the geopolitical sense first recorded 1900. World-class is attested from 1950, originally of Olympic athletes. :bloodofox: 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the nine dwellings in question is taken from Edda, an the book you refer to is written by a christian man called Snorre. The book starts with the story of Adam and Eve, and then continue with the story Noha and the flood. He then claim that in the centre of the earth was build a world called Troja, and from this place comes the man we call Tor. He also claim that Trudheim is in Trakia, and that Tor travelled around all heimsbolkar, fighting dragens and all kinds of things. The story of Thor in northen Europa is a very old one, written in stones called rockcarvings. In these carvings you will find motives from many of the tales written in Edda, and it was believed that these carvings was around 2000 years old. By comparing these carvings with ancian Greek pottery dating back as far as 5000 years, we can now prove that these carvings are wery old. It also means that the greek people are connected to the people from Scandinavia at this time. If we follow this logic we end up debating real geographi in the understanding of Snorres view of these places, and in Gylfaginning as you mention, Gylve travell to Åsgard to a castle called Valhall. And the location of this place is: Then they build a castle in the centre of the world called Åsgard; this is what people call Troja.

Gladshome the fifth is named,

there the golden bright

wide Valhall stands;

Ninum 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added the information regarding the images of the Thor stones to Wikipedia. I'm well aware of these four stones. I'm also aware that they were all created between the 8th and the 11th century, which is not "5,000" year ago by about 4,000 years.

Snorri's Prose Edda was written with his Christian influence in mind, either to save his own skin or because of his personal doctrine. We don't know. One of the earliest things you must learn when reading the Prose Edda, History of the Danish People, Heimskringla and the various other surviving accounts that attempt to Romanize the gods is their source and why that is done. I'm not interested in theorizing about a Greece-Denmark connection.

As for the Nine Worlds, they're there as they're stated and backed up by other sources outside of Snorri, including rune stones and surviving English text. :bloodofox: 22:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not talking about rune-stones, but motives in rockcarvings, but this is beside the point. Edda is not written by Snorre, but he used these poems as a source to compile Snorre-Edda where you find Gylfaginning, as you then use as a source for this theory about the Nine Worlds. Here we find text like The cosmological allusions in the Poetic Edda, and I assume you then are refering to the poems as mention above? Then it say that this are often vague, so when they say that Valhall is in Gladsheim, you mean that this is vague? Then it claims that there are a more clear descriptions in the Prose Edda, which brings us back to Gylfaginning which then is influenced by mediaeval Christian cosmology. There is a link to Prose Edda, whith the line Our ancestors divided the universe into nine worlds, which bring us back to the spaceship. Since you are not interested in theorizing about a Greece-Denmark connection, you must then exclude the work of Snorri, since he base his theory on Troy, which is taken from Greek mythology. The mention of these worlds in Edda, as you say, is just locations of halls, so this is then also excluded as a source, but as you say, this is backed up by other sources outside of Snorri, including rune stones and surviving English text. Ninum 16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the specific carvings. Maybe you're talking about the Nordic Bronze Age? If so, that is theory that it is not our place to speculate about here but we can add that others have with a proper reference.

In English Snorri's Edda is commonly known as the Prose Edda, as I stated above. As I also stated above, Snorri bases many aspects of his Prose Edda from the Poetic Edda, as well as sources unknown to us. He was obviously very well versed in these skaldic poems as they were in his time.

Notably, Muspelheim (Muspilli) is referenced in surviving Old High German poetry. Midgard is referenced in numerous places, for example this runestone.

The nine dwellings mentioned in the Völuspá seem to be locations within the "worlds", of which there are also nine. As with practically everything in Germanic paganism, everything comes down to the numbers 3 or 9. As for the term 'world' again, I must state that the term does not directly refer to outer space in English. :bloodofox: 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca edit

Hi there, I saw your recent edit which was reverted by Huntster. Personally I'd agree that Wicca is essentially a newly-invented religion but I can understand why Huntster reverted your contribution: it is a viewpoint that not all Wiccans would accept and would need to be worded a little more neutrally AND sourced. If you can find a source I'd support making sure that this point of view is held by at least some people. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kim! My edit was placed after reviewing the initial paragraph on the Wicca article after editing a very Wiccan-influenced author's page. I wanted to clarify that Wicca is not, for example, a continuation of Celtic practices as so many Wiccan works have attempted to claim. The usage of knot work, Cernunnos-like images, talk of 'druids' and Cernunnos-like imagery would lead many to believe this and it was clearly not by mistake given the origins of the religion. The introduction seems to point at this but states it "cannot be independantly proven" that it's continuation. I think it should clearly state that it's not a continuation of any native religion to the British isles that we know of via mountains the large amount of information we do have about the indigenous Celts and the conquering Anglo-Saxons. I am not sure where to go to find an article that's a decent reference for this, but I did find these three: [1], [2] & [3]. They've also appropriated things such as the maypole and certain holidays from Germanic paganism via Anglo-Saxon polytheism. I think figures from Celtic Reconstructionist Pagans groups would be of help here. :bloodofox: 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Trivia

From WP:Trivia#What_this_guideline_is_not; "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."

Emphasis mine. If you have other reasons than WP:Trivia to remove content then use those, otherwise leave it in. Taemyr 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Cruft, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, Wikipedia:Listcruft all point out numerous reasons why these are simply farms for tons of random, generally minor pop culture references. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. It's in the history of the article - if someone wants to merge it into a relevant article, they can go ahead, but all of the ...In Popular Culture articles have been deleted (most of which I made) for things relating to Germanic paganism have since been deleted and not by me. :bloodofox: 16:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there might be several reasons to remove this content, most of which springing from one of WP:IINFO,WP:DIR or WP:NOT#OR. If consensus is developed then WP:ROC will likely be easier to apply. I stand by my statement that WP:Trivia is not a guideline to lean on for removing content. Taemyr 07:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will try to be more specific. Thank you for calling me on it. :bloodofox: 08:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia

OK, maybe I was too fast in putting Anastazija to the list of Neofolk groups, but the description of this music style given in the article seemed to me that it exactly corresponds to what Anastazija are doing: use of traditional music and instrumentation; relation to post-punk, darkwave, gothic rock, industrial music and such styles: the frontman Goran Trajkoski is/was involved in such groups: Mizar, Padot na Vizantija, as well as other members of the Makedonska streljba collective which was related to Laibach's Neue Slowenische Kunst (for example Gorazd Čapovski's group Kismet in Australia included dark, industrial and ethnic music elements). While Anastazija's Before the Rain soundtrack included 100% traditional sound, their next albums like Nocturnal included elements of electronic music as well. Kiril Džajkovski was also making similar music in the past. I see Dark cabaret also mentioned in the Neo-folk article, Goran Trajkoski is working on such project right now, its called Circo Europia. Taking into consideration all of the previously mentioned facts I thought that Anastazija qualify for this Neo-folk label, of course I may be wrong, what is your opinion? --Dzole 17:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I can tell, there just isn't a direct relation outside of general similarities. If you can find otherwise though, you may as well go ahead and add it. I think there should be some sort of direct genre connect though, as in collaborating with other artists in the genre or receiving attention from a noted zine or so forth that directly refers to them as 'neofolk' somewhere. It's a gray area but it's all about association. :bloodofox: 07:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your two cents

I am a little bit disappointed in you seeing this. We have had constructive interactions in the past, even if, as you may remember, you had a bit of a rough start on Wikipedia. Now we seem to be running into a dispute, and instead of trying to come to a compromise understanding at Talk:Tyr (journal), you sort of smear me behind my back. This isn't a problem, but based on your userpage I would have expected a little bit more of you. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, I found the page where I voiced my concerns through your talk page, which is not exactly "behind your back." Besides, it would appears that I am but one of many. For that matter, I can only imagine how many otherwise constructive users you've frightened off with that nasty attitude and penchant for insults. Instead of claiming that you've been smeared, perhaps you ought to consider the reason for these numerous comments. The fact that you're an administrator doesn't help matters either. It's less likely a conspiracy considering I know none of those people and more likely your actions - nobody likes to be reverted by an administrator without explanation. :bloodofox: 02:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dab, I'm responding here to keep this discussion in one place. You know, I also considered posting on AN/I, but hesitated because AN/I isn't really the place for this type of thing. Something I don't think you realize is that your persistence and determination is being perceived as bullying by a number of people. While some of your more prickly tactics may be effective, and welcomed, when you've been battling kooks and racists, when you turn the same sort of attitude towards reasonable, experienced editors, this can be a problem.

Recently you've been adding some OR to articles, and it has at times felt like you're pushing an agenda. It hasn't always been clear to me what that agenda is, but I have felt pushed around at times. I am glad to see that more recently you've been more open to collaboration, and not just reverting. I am glad to see you discussing things more. But I would like to remind you that not all editors feel able to be bold and stand up to you, and I worry that when other editors do not stand up to you in a strong, determined way, you tend to take that as permission to keep pushing.

This may be far more a matter of personal style than good vs bad intentions. But really, it's not just :bloodofox: who has felt stressed out by your actions lately. I have, too. And I am sincerely requesting that you think about this. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn, you are a good editor, and I have never intended to 'bully' you. I have pointed out issues with your CR article, and I have been willing to discuss them with you in good faith. I have gone out of my way to reassure you that my attitude was not hostile, and that I was willing to compromise. If you feel stressed out by that, I am afraid I cannot help you. Likewise, with bloodofox, I recognize him as a good editor and would be most willing to discuss the issue calmly on Talk:Tyr (journal). Why either of you should feel compelled to turn against me in completely unrelated cases of actual trolling I don't know. My posting above is a show of good faith and an offer to discuss things calmly and with wikiquette. In return, I am accused of my "nasty attitude and penchant for insults". I frankly fail to see where I could have insulted either of you. If you will show me a diff where I lose my countenance, I will be quick to apologize. But I do take bloodofox's hostile reply as a rejection of my offer for friendly debate, and I will be content to restrict my interaction with him to the bare minimum required by policy. I am not here to make friends. I am here to build the encyclopedia. If that results in friendly interaction that's a nice aside, but if it doesn't, we can also do this in a purely official tone. dab (𒁳) 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab, As I said on my talk page, I think we're having some miscommunication here. I don't think you treat me the same as the trolls, and I am grateful for your support and cooperation. I was concerned that you were not taking the concerns of some other editors seriously (I was thinking mostly of bloodofox, pigman and myself, as I don't know the others who have mentioned it), and I wanted to encourage you to think about their perspective. I am sorry if I did this in a way that was hurtful to you. I reiterate, I think this is an issue of differing personal styles.

I have not seen you lose your countenance or yell at anyone. Your style has been calm. The things that have stressed me have been some of the sweeping changes and reorganization you've been making to a number of Neopagan-related articles, where at times your edits have created a large number of inconsistencies or unsourced theories that I've wound up cleaning up. No, I didn't *have* to clean them up, but I care about the articles and want them to be internally consistent as well as consistent across the project, and well-sourced. I really do appreciate your good intentions in your work on these articles, and you've also been doing good work in a number of the edits. I appreciate your dedication to the project.

I am sorry if discussing this is unpleasant for you. But I do not think bringing up these issues is "turning against you," and I apologize if I gave you that impression. I am also unclear on what you are referring to as "completely unrelated cases of actual trolling". Is this about other conflicts with actual trolls? If so, I am unaware of what those incidents are, and sorry to be somehow grouped with them.

Like I said, I think things have been improving, and I look forward to productive collaboration in the future. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification, Kathryn. I am most open to carve out intelligent and informed compromise by open confrontation of diverse viewpoints, focus on content issues and good faith debate. This applies to you, and it certainly also applies to Bloodofox. I did not open this section to complain about BoO having opinions I do not share. I commented because I found his behaviour (viz. trying to vent spleen against me in a wholly unrelated trolling case) vindictive, unconstructive, and not very honourable. I did appeal to his sense of fairness precisely because I consider him a good editor. I would not waste time and energy along such lines with users I judge to be either unwilling or incapable of constructive interaction (see below). dab (𒁳) 10:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann

I noticed that you've had some problems with this user, care to comment at this RFC? JJJamal (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even met this user. Try saying "policy" at Talk:Afrocentrism, and you'll have a whole hornet's nest after you. "Nationalists of all countries, unite!". The funny thing is that I get hardcore ethnocentrists of all descriptions, Hindu, Black American, Armenian, Nordic and what have you, out to paint me a "problem user". Give the most diverse or even antagonist factions a common adversary and they will stand united.What may be the common goal here? A shared dedicated interest to subvert Wikipedia core policy and glorify The Nation, of course. This will be interesting. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, are you implying that I am attempting to glorify something? :bloodofox: (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am implying that, for some reason or other, you suddenly find yourself united in opposition against me with accounts that are clearly "attempting to glorify something". It isn't always a good idea to blindly take the enemies of your enemies as your friends: you tend to end up cuddling with people you normally "wouldn't cross the street to pee on if they were on fire" (disclaimer: this is an authentic sample of British humour I picked up somewhere. Please don't give me a headache because I used the word "pee" on your talkpage, ok?). dab (𒁳) 11:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "united" there. Actually, I find some of their arguments pretty questionable, which is why my signature is clearly absent outside of my own summary and Pigman's comments. I was directed there due to the issues I have with your conduct which I think need to be brought to light. However, I think charges of "racism" or "White Man's Burden" are ridiculous and, obviously, some of these people are just pushing an agenda and luckily for them realize that you're an easy target/scapegoat. It doesn't benefit you or anyone else that you give them ammunition through smarmy commentary, you are basically helping them. Just slap them around with policy when they step out of line and leave it at that, any further commentary expressing any sort of opinion to them and it's only benefiting them in the long run. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

While I don't think anyone had any doubt that you would, I am glad to see you made it, Kathryn! Enjoy your break! :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Bloodofox - Thanks so much for the cleanup on the Grendel's mother page. Since your background in this aspect of the article is quite strong, I hope you'll give the article more tweaks and edits when you have a chance. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I am glad that to help on this very interesting subject. Keep up the good work! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous changes to the introduction (which I also tweaked a bit). That will help readers to distinguish between the original work and the multiple translations which currently exist - your edits are always so helpful, keep it up! Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I think things are looking much better in the introduction now. Thanks largely to your efforts, this is easily the finest article on the subject on the internet. :bloodofox: 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic Neopaganism

Can I ask you again to stop blanking content on this article that has been stable for months, and condescend to tag them with {{fact}} for five minutes instead so that we can address your concerns? Your behaviour at present is extremely unconstructive, and borders on positive disruption. dab (𒁳) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is inflammatory content that has been removed from other pages for the same reason that essentially breaks down to systematic insertion of your opinion. There was no citation given there and there is no citation here. This "stable" information was removed very recently by another editor who brought it to the talk page with the exact same concerns of my own. Your response? Wholesale revert. I've removed the controversial information until it has a source and is properly formatted, as per policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of your ArbCom statement

Hi. I saw your edit summary asking why your statement was moved to the talkpage in the Dbachmann case. First, generally, statements by non-parties to the case are moved to the talkpage, particularly when they are relatively lengthy, as yours is. Although you may have been involved in some of the prior controversies relating to this dispute, to the best of my knowledge you have not actually been named as a party to the case. Second and equally important, generally the casepage is kept for statements that were before the arbitrators at the time the case was accepted, and if I recall correctly, yours was posted later. In any event, please bear in mind that the location of your statement is not very important, as the arbitrators should read all the material on the casepages wherever it is located. To be even more sure, you can link to your statement from your evidence or one of your workshop proposals if you submit any of either. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you for your help! :bloodofox: 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yule articles

Hi Bloodofox, I'm afraid I've only got one book from which there's something to add to the subject. I'll soon be writing a related article and I'll add something to the articles you mentioned if I find something useful.--Berig (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, Berig! :bloodofox: (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please discuss in the talk page of the article Freyja. BTW, the link on the top of your page is misspelled (bloodofx), you should correct it 123.19.47.22 (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right! I fixed it, thanks for letting me know. I have since placed my response there and would be happy to speak to you about this. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allerseelen

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Allerseelen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Allerseelen. TheRingess (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Robertntaylor.jpeg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yule Log

If you want to question a source, then that's fine -- cite multiple sources that challenge the source. Or fold in your Thor stuff -- you seem to have a strong interest in putting Thor-centric stuff in Wikipedia, so I'd suggest you show some restraint, and provide sources. While we're at it, citing a source from 1897 is stretching things a bit, isn't it? Many of those old ultranationalist sources were across-the-board preposterous in their claims, and much of it was made up.

Conversations with a guy who knows a lot about stuff (even if he's claimed to be an admininistrator for scare value) doesn't really do the job on wikipedia. So let's start over. Add the material rather than obliterating it because it cites a Celtic origin for the yule log rather than your preferred interpretation, a Germanic one. Larry Dunn (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response is at: Talk:Yule_log#Recent_Llewellyn_Worldwide.2FPublications-derived_additions. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Troth

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]