User talk:Wiglaf archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:archive 1 (Feb 03 2004 - Aug 30 2004), archive 2 (Aug 30 2004 - April 18 2005), archive 3 (April 18 2005 - May 30 2005), archive 4 (May 30 2005 - July 6 2005), archive 5 (July 6 2005 - August 13 2005), archive 6 (August 13 2005 - September 11 2005), archive 7 (September 12 2005 - October 28 2005), archive 8 (October 29 2005 - September 28 2006)

Contents

[edit] Jomsvikings revisited

I have added the part I know best. Feel free to modify it, as I may have given it too much place. BTW, I live on the plain where the battle is said to have taken place.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Thanks! The article looks good. That's really cool about the plain. I have neve been to Scandinavia except for a week in Iceland. I got to see Bergthorshvoll and the river that Skarp-Hedin jumped over to kill what's-his-face. It was great. --Briangotts 7 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

[edit] Iðunn and Ívaldi

This is a bit complicated but the paragraph in question is clearly based on Rydberg's theories. I didn't remove it yesterday because I didn't want to break the flow of the text. Iðunn does seem to be said to be the daughter of Ívaldi in Hrafnagaldur Óðins which Rydberg relied on but most other scholars have dismissed.

BTW I finally read the fornaldarsaga you mentioned to me. Maybe I'll get around to writing a synopsis one of those days. - Haukurth 8 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

[edit] Book tips revisited

Just finished reading another book you may enjoy. It's called Last Light of the Sun by Guy Gavriel Kay. Kay wrote a series of books (Sailing to Sarantium, Lord of Emperors, and Lions of al-Rassan) which are set in a fictional world that parallels medieval Europe. In Last Light of the Sun the story focuses on 3 nations: the Erlings, who are basically Norsemen (and there's even a group of mercenaries based at "Jormsvik"), the Anglcyn, whose king Aeldred is basically Alfred the Great, and Llywerth which is made of competing pseudo-Celtic kingdoms, sort of a combination of Wales and Scotland. The depiction of the Erlings is particularly interesting, if a little bit over the top. Lots of blood-eagle-ing of captured enemies... --Briangotts 8 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

[edit] Delatinization

Thanks for helping out with the Swedish provinces articles. There's a lot of articles to go through, but I think we can get them up to reasonable shape soon enough. I've chosen to remove references to "History of XXX" and such if there is no stub to hold the meager info, but maybe you would like to fill some of them in.

Peter Isotalo 01:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crimean Karaites

Thanks for jumping in on this one. I feel like i'm running around in circles with this guy. --Briangotts 15:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest on the Talk page? They now want to expand their war to all Karaite-related articles. The "modest proposal" is so laughably extreme that I am impressed by its audacity. This is getting ludicrously out of hand. --Briangotts 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah they seem to have given up. Thanks again for your help. --Briangotts 01:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blocking

hi Wiglaf -- I do think that it would have been more proper to let a previously uninvolved admin do the blocking, but it's not a big deal. Anyway, this guy wasn't wreaking havoc either, he was comparatively polite, just adding the npov template, so the blocking was in no way urgent. That's just intended as friendly admin-to-admin input, you did nothing wrong. regards, dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] armenian genocide

Hi, i didn't notice someone removed it. Before you go jumping the gun i'd remind you that it was me who added that section that was removed, also it was me who expanded the section into politics which gave it far more information than would otherwise have been included in history. I'm also struggling to see four lines about armenian terrorism, what section are you refering to? --E.A 10:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Zivinbudas. He has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Congrats. That guy was outrageous. --Briangotts (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vagn

Started one on this fascinating fellow. --Briangotts (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I realized there were enough articles to make a nice little category. Also it could clear up some congestion in Category:Viking Age if some of the articles are moved entirely to the Jomsviking category. I was a little hesitent to do that myself a) because I don't know whose toes that would be stepping on and b) some of the articles really should appear under the general category as well as the Jomsvikings one. PS Ordered a copy of the Jomsviking saga and it's missing the first 3 chapters. I'm so pissed!--Briangotts (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vikings-Voyages.png

Haven't you noticed that Staraya Ladoga is misspelled on the map? Also, I believe that Kiev should be spelled Kaenugard, and Novgorod - Holmsgard, as per Garðaríki article. --Ghirlandajo 09:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bragi Ólafsson

Hi Haukurth, and great work on Norse mythology!!! Concerning uncontroversial moves such as Bragi Olafsson, there is no need to post it on requested moves. Just ask me next time, and I'll move it in an instant.--Wiglaf 18:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going to ask you but your page said you were gone for some days so I put up a request. :) - Haukurth 18:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kensington Runestone person

Perhaps you could take a look at Richard Nielsen, the "outstanding modern researcher on the linguistics and runology of the Kensington Runestone". The article may be autobiographical vanity, but it is at least authored by some believer in the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone and not NPOV. Note that he is claimed to have a degree from the "University of Denmark at Copenhagen", which is obviously non-existent, but he is likely to be identical to the apparently American Richard Nielsen who is listed on this page as having obtained a doctorate at the Technical University of Denmark in 1965. --Tupsharru 10:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Care to explain your reverts?

Would it be too much to ask that you explain the rationale for your reverts, and why you're joining with User:Jguk to violate policy by changing date styles in articles which consistently use one? Sortan 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to impose a rare alternative for the BC/AD terminology which has been rejected by community vote at Wikipedia. The rejection of your preferred terminology by the community is all the reason I need to revert you.--Wiglaf 17:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
No, if you'd read the WP:MOS, it explicitly allows both styles as long as articles are internally consistent. What is not allowed is to change an article which consistently uses one style to another style, which is what you (and User:Jguk) have been doing. The community has rejected not only using BCE/CE as a standard but also BC/AD, instead preferring to allow both systems. Sortan 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The majority vote was to reject the BCE/CE as a standard. Apparently, it is still not settled: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras. It is interesting to note that YOU have appointed yourself the arbiter of which one to use for consistency. Note that I am entitled to do the same and revert you. I do suggest that you consider only BC/AD for consistency as well, but I have not seen you opting for that version in a single article.--Wiglaf 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
And the consensus was to reject BC/AD as a standard as well... your point being? Again- the MoS only states that articles should be consistent (with either style), and so anyone is free to make articles internally consistent. What is inappropriate is to change an article which is consistent to another style without a good reason. Sortan 17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I am going to watch your edits, and if I see a single rv petty vandalism where you have changed a consistent AD/BC article into a BCE/CE article, I WILL revert you. Have no doubt about that. And don't try any "original version inconsistency" argument, because according to the logic you have presented here, you have no reason to change articles that are presently BC/AD consistent.--Wiglaf 17:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't appreciate your use of the admin rollback button to engage in revert wars. I believe the button is there to make fighting vandalism easier, not to make it faster for admins to engage in revert wars. The edits are also marked minor- which they are not- and you didn't bother to give a rationale for your reverts. Sortan 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have given you a rationale now, I suspected you'd ask.--Wiglaf 17:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Many of the cases Sortan has edited have been overwhelmingly CE/BCE before his changes. Some have not eg Library of Alexandria. I have to say that it is probably best to leave the decision BC v BCE to people who actually edit the individual pages but in some cases the result of this edit war has changed an overwhelmingly BCE page to BC. If we can't agree on criteria as to how to make pages consistent can we agree to a revert to the situation "ante bellum" so to speak. Dejvid 17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Nah, if you look at the history [1] it was User:Jguk who had previously changed BCE/CE to BC/AD. While it might be best to leave the decision to the people who regularly edit the pages, you're just inviting a visit from User:Jguk to force an article to use BC/AD that way. Sortan 18:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sortan, as clearly demonstrated by his edit history, is a sockpuppet troll account, and therefore is revertable on sight. When an account is used in this fashion, it's much quicker, and less disruptive, to do this rather than to wade through a morass of edits considering their relative merits one-by-one, jguk 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Most likely Soltan is a troll in which case he may even intend to be "counterproductive". Jguk has reacted to Soltan by going a beyond a revert to make pages consistetly AD-BC where they were overwhelming (if not consistently so) CE-BCE. So maybe when you revert then revert back to a pre Soltan state rather than to Jguk. On some pages active editors have taken action and there I think outsiders should leave things be. I might add that while I count myself as an outsider on most pages I am the most active editor for History of West Eurasia. BTW I fully understand Jguk's reaction but it isn't the best way to end an edit war.Dejvid 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Soltan is either a troll, a single topic POV-pusher or a role account. If it weren't for his single-minded work to introduce the CE-BCE terminology, I wouldn't even have bothered.--Wiglaf 19:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

hey Wiglaf, you do realize, of course, that the comment was directed at Soltan, not you? I am glad you are looking after this, we can't let him get away with this, after all. dab (ᛏ) 19:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I was doubting whether this work was worthwhile :).--Wiglaf 20:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Hey, Wiglaf, I think I tied myself in a knot as usual, I shouldn't have mentioned attacks on admins at all, because those weren't my subject. I proposed removing genocidal attacks and hate speech—impersonal attacks, really. They're illegal in many countries, and they're more offensive than personal attacks, AFAIC. I wouldn't care if somebody posted a string of epithet's about me—I'd laugh—I certainly wouldn't remove it, because that stuff always makes the attacker look worse than the attackee. No, this was about attacks—chiefly in the sense of Nazi rhetoric— against groups, not persons. "Irrelevant to this page" might be a good policy to cite for removing them. I mean, honestly, what are they even doing there? What have they got to do with "coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikipedia" ? I'm always removing posts at peer review that don't live up to the prominently posted instructions for using the page, why wouldn't we do the same here? Best, Bishonen | talk 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sandbox gnome

Hi Wiglaf,

Could I ask your advice?

This may or may not refer to wikipedia but your metaphorical home as well.

Let us say a kid wants to play in sandbox but is polite and does not break any rules. I expect the kid to grow up eventually in the mean time, he spends his time in almost entirely in the Sandbox.

However he went to far and accidentally destroyed part of it. He doesn't contribute anything though and so the anti-fun bullies (trolls) totally ban him forever from the premises. Is this Ok? Could I ask your comment?

Please unban User:DrZoidberg.

Best regards ,

--Jondel 00:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] elves and Elves

Hi, Wiglaf! Good work on elf, there; though I see that you shun the "show preview" button :D

I note that you like to capitalize "Elf" and "Elves". I believe that unless you are Tolkien and view "Elven" as a sort of nationality, proper English is to not capitalize mythical beings: elves, fairies or what have you. Merriam-Webster gives elf and fairy with lower case initial and e.g. Norwegian (and Aesir and Vanir) with an initial capital. --Salleman 12:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been thinking of asking your opinion on this. Since Vanir and Aesir are spelt with capital letters, it seems natural to capitalize elf as well.
But only the elves of Norse mythology, then. Hmm ... I checked some of the translations at Northvegr. Brodeur's Prose Edda (who quite uniquely does not Anglicize names) has "Elves":
Some are of Æsir-kin, / some arc of Elf-kind, / Some are Dvalinn's daughters. [2]
Anderson has "elves":
Some are of the asas, / Some are of the elves, / Somea are daughters of Dvalin. [3]
And Bellows' Poetic Edda has also "elves":
How fare the gods? / how fare the elves? / All Jotunheim groans, / the gods are at council; [4]
If we check the Old Norse originals at http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ we find álfr and the likes of it not capitalized. [5] (scroll down to row "23.") and [6] (scroll down to R50 / H40 / B48 / Gg51).
All that said, I can see the reason behind "Æsir, Vanir and Elves," but I prefer "elves" as much as possible. Maybe a compromise could be to use "Álfar" more extensively? --Salleman 13:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't care one way or another but I agree that consistency would be nice. The original manuscripts don't really have a lot of capital letters (even for proper names). In normalized spelling "álfar", "æsir" and "vanir" are usually in lower case - but English likes upper case more than many languages and that's fine.
I'm wondering if we should start a WikiProject on Norse mythology to have a central location to talk about things like this. - Haukurth 19:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Przeworsk culture

I was saving some other stuff too and you stepped on it. No great loss -- notes from a polish site. Note that the authors, Marek Oledzki (Lodz) and Magdalena Maczynska (Lódz) are poles, however.

My only ref for Prz is the very scant article Mallory gives in EIEC so I've been snooping around for material.

It seems however that the Prz culture was Germanic, specifically Gothic and/or Vandalic.

The Battleaxe people article is terrible. I've fiddled a little with it. I propose moving it to Corded Ware culture, after cleaning up the text. --FourthAve 21:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I adapted your wonderful map for the Terramare culture article snatched from the 1911 EB. Got one for the Corded Ware culture?

You can take a peek. It's as full as I can make it. I have zilch on artefacts. There is very little on the net. My article is about as long as Mallory's; his one on the Corded Ware culture 10 times longer.--FourthAve 23:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been busy. I've been mining the EIEC for earlier cultures. I saw your note to Dbachmann. There's some sort of anon troll at work in Indo-Iranians. While this is not an article high on my priority list, there is stuff I could contribute, but not with something like that hanging around. --FourthAve 19:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA and Zoidberg

Thank you for your vote of confidense and taking time out to explain things to me. --Jondel 15:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massive deletion of content

Can you explain this massive deletion of content [7]?--Wiglaf 17:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the content ot Elazig as it deals with the city, not the province. Sortan 17:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for the info on being blocked for vandalism. I believe that you can also be blocked for WP:3RR. Sortan 17:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, so that is why you suddenly became interested in the article! It was a trap.--Wiglaf 17:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Err, no... I'm interested the same way you're interested in my edits. Sortan 17:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

And I take issue with your use of the rollback button (again!). This [8] revert is without explanation, and results in a massive loss of content. A) An explanation would have helped, and B) It would have been more appropriate to reinsert the line about the Armenian genocide rather than wholesale reverting. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater as the saying goes. Sortan 17:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You are extremely vengeful apparently.--Wiglaf 17:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but it was not I who mass reverted your edits. It was not I who makes threats of blocks. I have tried to be courteous, only to be met with disparaging remarks from you. Sortan 17:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
That courtesy completely escaped me.--Wiglaf 17:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
And could you point out where I have been discourteous? The tone of my inital post to you make not have been overtly friendly... but I had just come here after you had mass reverted all my edits with no explanation, so I feel it was understandable. Sortan

[edit] Swedes and Suiones

I put Suiones in the Terminology list since I happened to come across the article, but I'm not at all familliar with the issue. Do you think "Swedes" ought to be recommended as the first choice? If so, feel free to rephrase the entry. Alarm 20:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Det var så lite! If you post a notice under the news section on the Swedish Wikipedians' notice board whenever you're involved in any similar vote or debate, I promise to check it out. (Except during the next two weeks, when I'll be away on vacation.) / Alarm 21:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We've been busy

I've been busy, and so have you. Take a peek at Chernoles culture. This an article that needs developing. There is nearly nothing on the web (9 hits); the most valuable was, suprisingly, a Lithuanian chat board. I dropped it into the article on proto-slavic. There might be something in the other language wikis. --FourthAve 23:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I've started a rewrite for battle axe; see Talk:Battle-axe people I don't know how deeply I want to get into Gimbutas' theories. But I do see I will also have to do some work on the Beaker culture and de novo a Globular Amphora culture, at least. --FourthAve 03:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

OK. But if I do a "personal attack" (because I don't know how exactly u define that), plz inform me first, before u apply any penalties, in order to remove the phrase that u believe that is cause the personal attack.

Thanks,
MANOS

"I have warned you on Talk:Ancient Macedonian language due to your attacks on Dab. I am only adding it here as well for the record. Next time you will be blocked.--Wiglaf 09:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MANOS"

Wow. Wait a second. I'm the "bad guy" and dab is the good? He told me that I'm a vandal, child, straw man and I don't remember what else. What the heck do u call that?MANOS



I hope u don't find the last post as personal attack, because it's referred to dab. I didn't call any names or smth. Right?
Btw dab ---> bad. :-P Even his nick shows that he is a bad guy.
jk
MANOS

I think I have the right to move the old post of my talk page to another section. Right?
MANOS

Then you should indicate the page to which you moved the content, see for instance the links on top of this page.--Wiglaf 16:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I already did.
I forgot to do that the first time. :-P
MANOS

hell, no, my initials spell the inverse of bad. I'm the good guy Wiglaf, plz believe me, don't block me plz!!11 :p dab (ᛏ) 19:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norse mythology and Norse legend

Hi!

Good work on categorizing the Norse mythology articles. It's much easier to keep track of things with smaller more specific categories.

I'm wondering where we can draw the boundary between Norse mythology and Norse legend. The stories about Sigurðr & co. seem pretty mythological to me. They're included in the Eddas and they involve mythical creatures and even the gods themselves. Ragnarr Loðbrók is closer to history. But he also slays a dragon and he's Sigurðr's son in law.

Any thoughts?

- Haukurth 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. There will always be gray areas, of course. Is Sigurðr a legendary character and Fáfnir a mythical character? That's reasonable, I suppose. Maybe we should move some of the stuff from the cluttered Norse mythology page to a page on Norse legends. - Haukurth 19:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi Wiglaf. I have scanned in these two images for you. Maybe you are familiar with what they depict?

Kung Inges grav och gravsten
Enlarge
Kung Inges grav och gravsten
Harald Hildetands grav, och Ubbes högar
Enlarge
Harald Hildetands grav, och Ubbes högar

[edit] elves subpages

Elf (roleplay) (which also deals with computer games) should IMO be merged with Elf (fantasy) (which currently deals only with fantasy literature). This means that Álfar, Scandinavian elves, German elves and English elves should be expanded/created as well. --Salleman 18:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigvaldi Strut-Haraldsson and Styrbjörn the Strong

Both are claimed to have succeeded Palnatoke at Jomsborg. The Jomsviking page also has this discrepency. Which is right? --Briangotts (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to clarify things on the pages, unless you have time and the desire. --Briangotts (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Götaland theory

I'm way out of my league in this one, I'm afraid, and unable to opine on the factual assertions of the article (the theory itself strikes me as patently false, but I have no idea whether it has a following or not). However, I do tend to see the arguments raised by some of the other people voting keep. If there's an article for Flat Earth Society, clearly there's no policy against idiotic theories, don't you think? PS I took the liberty of adding Jomsvikings to the list of articles on your user page you have edited substantially, I hope you don't mind. --Briangotts (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with nutty theorists can be a chore... --Briangotts (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valhalla

Don't know if any of this is relevant to the article, but thought I'd see what you think. The conventional view of pagan Norse religion, reflected on the article page is that the brave who died in battle went to Valhalla, and everyone else went down to Hel or some other less-than-savory place. It occurs to me that this must be a gross oversimplification. How can you run a society when everyone believes that the only way to secure a good afterlife is to die in battle? Seems to me everyone would just start bashing each other at random. Also doesn't provide much incentive to be victorious if all you have to do is be killed. Even the jihadis believe that you can get to heaven in other ways besides death in battle. My hunch is that the conventional view of Valhalla is either a later invention, or was the belief of a limited set of Odin cultists (like the Jomsvikings, for instance) and not shared by the general public. Do you know of any sources that talk about this belief? --Briangotts (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of what remains of Norse mythology is the mythology of the elite, of the aristocracy. As far as I know the people who went to Hell were those who lied, had breaken an oath or did not cut their nails or their hair. The slaves went to Thor himself, and IIRC, the women who died in childbirth went to Frigg. I guess decent commoners went to another place, although there are no extant sources about this. Balder went to Hell, on the other hand, so all I can say is that we know too little today. I can verify later this evening and get back to you about it.--Wiglaf 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Sure, whenever you have time. Just something I was mulling over. --Briangotts (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for the barnstar! :) I'll try to live up to it. One thing I just started is trying to ensure that we have an article for every article in John Lindow's Handbook of Norse Mythology. See User:Haukurth/Handbook.

BTW - you're right that Lodur should have been moved to Lóðurr - I didn't notice it had ever been more than a redirect.

- Haukurth 19:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

Thanks! I appreciate it. --Briangotts (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Never heard of you... I don't feel comfortable voting for someone I've never heard of before... Redwolf24 21:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What kind of comment is that? No one asks you to vote, you do so voluntarily.--Wiglaf 21:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
LOL!!!! --Briangotts (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
How does one go about fishing for crayfish? And what does one do with them once caught? --Briangotts (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in, I just happened to see this! I had no idea Sweden had "crayfish." Typing this word makes me laugh. I'm from the Texas Gulf Coast, not far from the Louisiana border, and the Louisianans call 'em crawfish. Texans tend to go with crawdads (or crawfish). And the recipe also made me laugh! We boil 'em with all kinds of spicy stuff (a concoction generally called "crawfish boil"), and Irish red potatoes, and eat 'em on the spot. No waiting until they're cool. The beverage of choice is generally beer, though vodka would do in a pinch ;). Apologies, both of you, for hijacking your talk pages. Let me know if you want it back. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Runestone template

I noticed you put a template in the Kensington runestone article. I have a couple of reactions and would like to discuss them with you before doing anything bold in terms of edits to the article.

  • I can't find any other runestone articles which use the template. However, I didn't look at all of them.
  • I think the template is ugly and distracting. I also think it's too big and contains redundant information.
  • Confining the primary illustration inside the template is IMO unhelpful and also distracting.

Could I have your thoughts on this? Thanks! :) Wyss 05:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually have to agree that it is ugly. It looks particularly bad in those cases where most of the content of the article ends up in the infobox, and one has to scroll down to see the whole text, all to the far right, while most of the page is empty. Tupsharru 22:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rök stone picture

Kudos for taking a free picture of the Rök stone! :) Much better than that ugly old scan or having to bother with special permissions.

I think you forgot to specify the pic's license.

- Haukurth 21:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent picture of the Rök Runestone, I bow for your photographic skills, perfect light, perfectly readable. Did you make photos of the sides and the top too? The top is very interesting for illustrating cipher runes... Nixdorf 21:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bronze stuff

well, Wiglaf, we have looked at a few interesting things today, haven't we, the pointy hat, Sun chariots and what not. Of course, I have gotten no work at all done today, and begin to fell I'm actually working for Wikipedia full time. Bad sign... I'm going home now, though. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] proto-language

I think there is some terminological difficulty regarding Ur-, Proto- and Common -- as in Common Germanic redirecting to Proto-Germanic. As I understand it, Common X would refer to the period of time (couple of centuries) before a division, while Proto- refers to the exact latest stage (if there is such a thing) when the languages took different path. In this sense, Proto-Norse would have been spoken at some point around 800, while "Common Norse" or "Common North Germanic", say, from 200 to 800? dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

hm, yes, but the Proto-Norse article pretends that the terms are all synonymous, while my point is that there are actually differences in meaning. dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarpan

That's nonsense, I think. But Tarpan dosen't have much history, can you give me some diffs? Also, I thought you wanted to take a break for the day :p ? dab (ᛏ) 11:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stone age and other Swedish pre-history

Hi, I just added a large chunk of text to the Pre-history of Sweden article. Could you please look over it, you're the only real expert I know of... As a side note, we ought to get Nordic Stone Age started when we have time, that one is really needed. Some of the stuff from the pre-history article could possibly be reused. Thanks! Nixdorf 18:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corded Ware culture

See Globular Amphora culture and Baden culture, which each simultaneously overlap the Corded Ware culture both spatially and temporally (and to a degree, do the same to each other the their edges), and are indeed kurganizing elements. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I'm only reproducing what I read in EIEC. Take a look at Wheel talk for some sensational quotes. --FourthAve 09:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As I explained to dab, My setup is pretty primitive. I lack a scanner, or even a way to upload pix from a digital camera. When I replace this nearly 8 year old system with the next one, then things will change. --FourthAve 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
see my comments there. --FourthAve 17:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franks and Scandinavians

Why do you not accept the fact that tribal identity was actually stronger in "tribalistic times"? For instance; today we think little of difference between Franks and Burgundians, but back during those times they were very sharply defined. Back then, Jutes and Danes were separate peoples as were the Angles and Saxons. The way of confusing Danes and Norwegians in their "viking times" is revisionist and does not reflect the primitive nature of politics, but does in fact reflect the Kalmar Union's dismissal of local individuality per tribe or nation. Please join me in dispelling the nonsense from people confusing the Kalmar Union's concept of a "Scandinavia", with the earlier and separate colonial ventures by each tribe and/or nation. The Anglo-Saxons called "vikings" in the Danelaw=Danes, because they were and to think else is to confound the fact that Jutes of Kent and Wight when an independent nation had also been understood for who they were. Recall that Germanic peoples were very precise about loyalty and orientation in similar context to Scottish clans(see Norse clans), although the Greeks and Romans were the ones with fuzzy knowledge. To think the opposite is to accept anachronistic descriptions as the main perceptions, to encourage others into ignorance and their judgements of the Viking age are perfect examples of how it gets out of control. Please, let's reserve that for children's books on the "Vikings". I understand that part of this confusion was deliberate, because Scandinavians were competing for all the romantic glory of their collective forbears and some peacemakers did not allow conclusive evidence to be accepted in the interests of keeping people from gloating. This is called Janteloven and was an influence on the formation of Protestantism. Remember, English are not the same as British in the same sense that Danes are not the same as Scandinavians. Do you understand what I am saying here? Have you yet accepted User:Dan_Koehl/viking's treatise or are you enjoying the ignorance that foreigners have to the Nordic world? Franks knew that Normans were Northmen from Norway, despite some Danes settling there. Denmark used to control the pirate/viking cove called Viken, but Harald I of Norway abolished this influence.

Even if you do not believe this still with such amounts of knowledge, then account for the genealogy of William I of England in the fjordlands! Why else would Harald III of Norway and Sigurd I of Norway make it to Sicily and the Holy Land on early Crusades, with the Normans under Tancred of Hauteville joining them and Richard_I_of_England#The_struggle_for_Sicily being an issue for England? Just tell me how many Danish kings went to the Mediterranean, or compare the size of Norway with that of Denmark and how many people can fit within each land's borders. Do you know why Anglo-Saxon and Danish power became eclipsed at the same time? English were conquered by the Normans and Denmark was confined between the North Sea and the Baltic. This is because Denmark already had several exoduses in the Migration Age, with Vandals, Heruli, Jutes, Angles, Burgundians having depopulated Denmark. Sweden's "Varangian" colonies in Eastern Europe were smaller than Norway's, because the Goths and others had already left for there in the Migration Age. Now tell me, how many Norse tribes left Norway in that Volkerwanderung but perhaps Rugians from Rogaland? Does it then make more sense for you to see why Norway became a world power for the first time in history, with enough gusto to make it to North America? So then of course, Denmark and Sweden did not have this sort of leverage being without the manpower to back it up. Why was Harald III of Norway achieving a bit in Northern England on the repertoire of Eric Bloodaxe who was king of Jorvik, but "powerful" Denmark had failed to prevent the Norse takeover of Jorvik from the Norwegian Irish in Dublin and Sweyn Estridsen or Canute the Holy fail miserably to inherit the English throne? Think again, why the English do not appreciate the Normans' magnificent contributions to England even today but do in fact like how Canute the Great raised English power very high in those times. Tell me why England with its Danish component had such problems with France having Normans? The Danes in the Danelaw hated the Normans of Normandy and this could only be due to the imperial rivalry of Denmark and Norway. Saxons and Franks had made truces in mutual defence against the Danes and Northmen, who introduced new rivalries in the region that did in fact retrigger violence in the Hundred Years' War.

Did you ever wonder why the British throne has a line of succession that includes the Norwegian royals but not the Danish? It is despite the fact that there had been many more Danish marriages with the British royal family, due to the underclass of English being of Denmark/Jutland descent and the upper class didn't want to be on the same level as the subjects. This is being more overturned since the Frankish Welfen/Hanovers gave way to the Saxon Wettin/Windsors and Danish Oldenborg/Mountbattens. Maybe the Danish Prince Consort is of Burgundian descent. Consider folk history: Njord of Norway's son was Freyr of the Frisians. Heathen Franks entered the Roman Empire into Franken from Frisia, with a banner of toads(frogs) until accepting Catholicism and changing to the Fleur-de-lis(also in Quebec, French Canada), while the Frisians continue to use their lily pads into the present day on the provincial flags of Friesland. So it appears that even those people way back then in the "Dark Ages"/Heroic Age, had connections that persisted up to "Viking times". The later Auld Alliance between Norway, Scotland and France which was used up to the Louisiana Purchase to strike at Denmark, Germany and England when the Scottish proto-Confederate American States inflamed passions against the New Englanders by getting French land. The Yankees were Whigs against Scottish President Andrew Jackson as they had been Whigs against the Scottish Duke of York James Stuart, who had flown to the court of Louis XIV of France. The New Englanders recruited 1848 rebels from Germany to fight on the side of the Union against the Scottish Confederacy. Now you see, the Midwest is German and directly to their south is Louisiana Frenchmen. As you can see, it is due to widespread anti-intellectualism that people do not learn about their history and when knowledgeable people like you make sure to enforce this problem by demanding that the status quo stay the same. Don't you see how witholding information is absolutely damning to the very purpose of the Wikipedia and FREE INFORMATION? What others need, is for you to acknowledge the truth written by Dan Koehl instead of the lowest common hive mind via media held by lay persons who NEED TO KNOW MORE, not stay uninformed! Don't shelter them.

TheUnforgiven 15:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you are not going to help the general public try to learn the truth, then you are a detriment to the Wikipedia and should be banned for spreading misinformation. You have yet to refute all the facts I wrote in 3 paragraphs elaborating why Normans were Norwegians. You may not care for your own feelings, but we reserve the right to keep people informed in truth. Your arguments do not explain why the Danish Royal Arms have had Wends/Vandals and Geats/Goths on them for a long time until Queen Margrethe had hers changed. So I read about that discrepancy too, but apparently Denmark controlled the Geats/Goths in Canute the Great's reign and had governors at Visby during the later Middle Ages. What would refute a possible confederacy with Danes and Geats during that raid on Frisia? Your insistence on being ignorant about this is not the choice of all Wikipedians and browsing guests. Please don't block what you don't know. TheUnforgiven 15:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Have you not read Beowulf and understood national relationships? I think that you are prejudiced about your own kind and this POV is definitely not NPOV. You confuse janteloven with accepting the proportion of peoples for claims as if it was just about glory. Just think...just because Malmo has a whole lot of Muslims, does not make Sweden an un-Christian country. When there are Christians in Heathen Scandinavian tribes, that does not make the countries Christian. You have to see that the concept of Danes in Normandy is no different than the view of Swedes in Iceland, which there is a record for in at least one Swede. When Anglo-Saxons went with Varangians to Byzantium, look at it in the context of Edgar Ætheling born in Hungary: Magyars are not Anglo-Saxon. What you do in avoiding conclusion, is effectively bastardise my ancestors for the general public and as such is libel to my person. I demand your self-control. TheUnforgiven 16:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The Northmen already knew who they were and gave their name to Normandy, which no Frank invented! Do you really have this low of an ego, to think the French invented the Norman people? Charlemagne was powerful, but he had no license to invent a populace. Burgundy has Franks there, but we know that the BURGUNDIAN people were the reason for their country. Just because there were English, Irish, French and Germans in the American Confederacy, doesn't mean that the purpose for the Confederate flag in imitation of Saint Andrew's is any different from the failed Scottish rebellions in Britain against the English and in America against the New Englanders. You have to understand that if there were a majority of Norwegians in the Danelaw, then the land would be called Northlaw or similar? Even the Irish knew and they weren't Germanic peoples, having an entirely separate family of languages. They knew Fingall were Norwegians and Dubhgall were Danes. Don't confuse scholastic mistakes or lack of clarity. TheUnforgiven 16:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
All right then, what is the purpose of your archaeological maps for the material cultures in Europe's history? Is that not clarifying the past, while all that Dan and I have done is explain what the Kalmar Union rewrote perceptions and explain that the Viken's vikings like Jomsborg's Wendish pirates weren't the same in origin and character as Scandinavian countries? We do this in the interests of understanding the past without such anachronistic concepts you and kindergarteners embrace. You are trying to defame us while not wanting to be accountable for doing as such to our ancestors. Why be so dogmatic on the Kalmar Union version of history? I've cited so many things that you do not even address, so what else will you not comment on if I were to "get for you"? You really don't want anything else, but for this "problem to go away" and for dissenters to "shut the fuck up". What kind of attitude like this will do good for the Wikipedia? Look here, you accuse me of rewriting history when it is people like you who are romantic revisionists. Does the truth hurt or are you afraid of losing control about anything outside your dogma? What have you to lose if non-Germanic people understand? Did you know that many countries do not put Scandinavian history in alongside with the Pagan Roman and Holy Roman histories as the collective view of Europe? So while the academics think that either Scandinavia's past is embarrassing or unworthy of inclusion amongst the rest and who'd wonder why Norway and Iceland are not in the EU, with that sort of attitude against them? Poles and Eastern Europeans have this same problem at the Wikipedia, but why limit the scale of this encylopedia? Who gave you the right to censor the expansion of knowledge about under-represented peoples in the world, but your own authority? TheUnforgiven 16:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I tell you that I admire your own created maps of material cultures about these things, but could you do the same for Dan and I? Could you be better than cautionary-condescending with the lot of other people who have done studies for as almost as long, just as long or longer than you? Just because uneducated and lay people may be ignorant, means that we must give to them what they need to know and not what sounds good. The idea of Denmark colonising Normandy is merely an approximating guess about geography, nothing more. You can't even take William the Conqueror's bloodlines and that is extremely offencive to me and all Englishmen descended from him(including the British Royal Family) and/or from the Danes that rebelled against his Norman rule as they rebelled against Tostig's defection to Northman Harald Hardraada. I really demand that you withdraw from editing on absolutely all article parts that refer to this issue. This is something that most decent people adhere to at the best of their efforts and is required for the editing of Wikipedia, not media spin or censorship and accepting POV prejudice in lieu of this: WP:AGF. Look here: http://www.ndcourts.com/court/rules/ndroc/rule6.10.htm You almost force my hand into breaking WP:NPA, by instigating the break on your own part. Please reconsider. TheUnforgiven 16:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Once more; would Charlemagne say that Gudfred was "King of the Northmen" or rather "Roi de Danemark"? TheUnforgiven 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Why haven't you verified your perceptions any better than I? TheUnforgiven 18:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Well then, you can follow Wikipedia's rules by citing just what would refute my edits and prove that your addition of other people's dubious original research is correct. I am waiting for a reasonably justifying refutation. Both Dan and I disagree with you, although you bullied him into feeling sorry for himself. It won't work with me, because I don't take revisionist bullshit from anybody. Play sysop/admin God all you want, but it won't make your POV true. TheUnforgiven 19:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
At least one of your maps is wrong, that of Old East Norse being in Normandy and a lack of it in Ireland. Prove your claims or remove that map from all pages. TheUnforgiven 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I seriously mean what I do about that specific map of yours. Anyways, you are wrong because I never said that. What I said was, the major group of Normandy were Norse. Danes, Swedes, English, Bretons, Franks and Flemings all made their way into Normandy but were not Norman themselves except if you consider citizenship. There is a difference between nationality and ethnicity, because one is registration and the other is breeding. I am American by nationality and perhaps one could say this is a replacement for British, but I say the ancestral country of origin inasmuch as not all Europeans are the same either. Do you understand what is meant? Even if I attempted to correct the flaws in the language for the Normans article, you would fight me on it due to misunderstanding what I have said. Did you cite sources to put that map up? If so, please show me before I decide to edit the talk page about your map. You are the one who INVENTED it, not I. It's your burden of proof mate. TheUnforgiven 19:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
You are misusing the "citing sources clause" by trying to apply that as replacement for using your mind in determining whether such a source could even be correct. There must be both. TheUnforgiven 19:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Please explain more than that, as you've been taught to do so in an academic institution. I'm afraid that your miniature quips are unacceptably oversimplistic. Be reminded that this is an encyclopedia, not secondary education or magazine editorial essays. TheUnforgiven 19:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, so I saw the note at Talk:Viking. Is all this noise because Normandy is coloured Old East Norse on the map? Have there ever been found any Norse texts/inscriptions in Normandy at all? Fornadan (t) 20:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know of any texts, but there are many Scandinavian place names.--Wiglaf 20:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Normans#Norwegians.28A_Northmen.27s_fief_in_France_being_known_as_Normandy.29 and refrain from reverting the Ragnar Lodbrok article once again. "The old boar" prompted the presence of my ancestors in England at the side of "the little pigs". I do swear to know more than you on Ragnar's legacy. TheUnforgiven 21:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not that I want an edit war, for I want satisfaction. Leaving articles with language that suggests a state of confusion on the topics in question is unprofessional. I understand your advice, yet I will also say that my energy for an overhaul of this is not with me at the moment. I may get to doing so at another time, since I am now drained. TheUnforgiven 21:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Hammarskjöld family

I just put two and two together. Yes, you're a Swede, and I just remembered I put in a request for translation from the sv wikipedia for Hjalmar Hammarskjöld. If he's famous at all in the US, it's because he's Dag Hammarskjöld's father, but hey, he was Prime Minister of Sweden, and English deserves a decent overview of this boring Swedish politician, just as you Swedes are inured to boring overviews of boring American politicians. And it's a good start on bringing in the chain of Swedish PMs into English. The articles need not be as detailed (we don't need the names of ministers of troll-abatement), just a tedious overview giving names, dates, and basic local politics. I did ask dab to translate the German wiki Ertebölle culture, but he seems to have overlooked it. Do a redirect without the o-umlaut, else the article is isolated from English.

And what is this pilpul you're having with The Unforgiven? --FourthAve 23:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The British Royal Family's descent goes to Norway and this is why the Norwegian Royal Family are higher on the Line of succession to the British Throne, but where is the Danish Royal Family in this except afterwards? William I of England's line by Rollo of Normandy is responsible for HM the Queen's oldest Norwegian ancestry, although there may be some later from Scottish-Norwegian royal marriages. This is what it goes back to: William's line moved from Norway to Orkney and then onto Normandy. This produced the Auld Alliance of several centuries. If you don't know the truth, just ask them. Besides, Wiglaf is listening to revisionists of history within the past two centuries in which Romanticism played an important part in rewriting history to suit nationalistic glory. Apparently, some think that poor little Denmark should have had more land than was in actuality: Danelaw. TheUnforgiven 13:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corded Ware

Im sorry Wiglaf! The blank map I used is really much more detailed than the one in the EIEC. For example, the outline of Gotland does not even appear on the EIEC map, it is really quite rough. I have done my best to trace the borders of the outline given in EIEC on my map, but it is really impossible to say whether Närke is just included or just excluded on the EIEC map, so I suppose it could be included in our map with good conscience. I am also quite annoyed that the first map I should derive from my blank "Europe" map turns out to need parts of Finland that are off it. Since there is really just a little bit of Finland missing, I couldn't be bothered to create a new blank map, but I certainly wouldn't object if you started over and replaced my map with a properly done one, showing both Närke and southern Finland. dab (ᛏ) 08:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigurd Syr

I started this one a while ago but it's still a bare stub. Can't find too much info on the guy. Do you have anything to add? --Briangotts (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

AAARRRGH!!!! I made tons of edits to it and when I tried to save them my stupid computer crashed on me! No time now to make the edits again, will do later. --Briangotts (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/g/User_talk%7EWiglaf_archive_5_c16f.html"