User talk:Goldfritha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Goldfritha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DVD+ R/W 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Theme (literature)

Goldfritha, you made an excellent addition to the Theme (literature) article. That's a great point. Question: Do you have a source for this insight? It would really be great if we could attribute this assertion to an outside source. Incidentally, what is Shakespeare's source for R&J? Thanks, Applejuicefool 16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

'fraid that the observation is the distillation of much reading about themes, especially reading how people interpret literary themes. But I added the source, including a quote to show what the original them was. 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Humm. On consideration -- I think Wayne C. Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction was a pivotal book in this matter. Goldfritha 16:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scandal

Hi, thanks for making those scandalous edits and saving the article. Good job! Is it scandalous if you've now helped to seduce into spending more time on Wikipedia than I should? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Well I didn't intend it or know -- but you could have taken scandal at my actions, and so it could be passive scandal. 0:) Goldfritha 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tatterhood

Thanks for creating this article, I remember reading this story when I was a kid. However, your synopsis needs work. It should read more like a summary and less like a children's poem, as this is an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, bravo! Squigish 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think it needs more work -- sure, go ahead. I knew this was Wikipedia when I submitted it. Goldfritha 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dashes

I notice you've been using "&mdash" a lot. It'll save you a lot of typing, and be more Wikipedia compliant, if you click on the long dash symbol from the Insert frame underneath the edit frame. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elf-Stroke

What's your source for the claim that the term "stroke" comes from elf-stroke? The OED gives "stroke of God's hand" as the earliest recorded usage, and I can't find any reliable source claiming otherwise. Consequently, I've removed that claim from Fairy and stroke for the time being.

Regards, Nandesuka 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Lang's Fairy Books and Tolkien

Hi there. I was recently following up some wikilinks I made between Tolkien and Andrew Lang's Blue Fairy Book, and I came across Andrew Lang's Fairy Books and all the redirects you'd made and material you had added. I'm very impressed by this, and I know a lot more now than I did previously about Andrew Lang's work with fairy stories. Tolkien was a friend of Roger Lancelyn Green, who dedicated one of his books ('The Tale of Troy') to his "favorite authors": Andrew Lang and H. Rider Haggard who co-wrote The World's Desire (a retelling of the Troy story I thought, though the article suggests I am wrong on this). Tolkien also wrote a letter asking for Green's expert opinion on early collections of fairy-stories, and I presume Tolkien must have been much aware of Lang's work and books, as well as delivering the 1939 Andrew Lang lecture. I also followed up the "See also" links at the bottom of East of the Sun and West of the Moon, and was very gratified to see Tolkien mentioned at Black Bull of Norroway, which, as the article said, he mentioned in his essay On Fairy-Stories. Do you think it is worth adding more links in the right places between the Andrew Lang material and Tolkien's essay? Carcharoth 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien certainly knew about Lang's books; in "On Fairy Tales" he describes them in several places. I think it would be quite interesting to add more links -- though I myself am still working on the fairy stories. Goldfritha 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Though I will note that the Andrew Lang books were indeed children's books. That's part of Tolkien's complaints about them. Goldfritha 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry about that. Do you agree that the article is no longer a stub, though? Maybe the "children's books" aspect can be covered by placing the article in an appropriate category? (As I've now done). Carcharoth 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure. (Me, I'm still trying to master the arcane differences between stubs and non-stubs. Or perhaps, the arcane differences between what gets tagged as stubs, and what doesn't. 0:) Goldfritha 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child ballads

Your work on the Child ballads is exemplary, and is some of the greatest work I have seen on Wikipedia. You are to be congratulated. Huzzah! ---Charles 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Goldfritha 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You are entirely welcome. ---Charles 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. I just saw you making new ones while watching Special:Newpages. It's great to see these reaching Wikipedia. Choess 01:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Particular judgment

Thanks for your help on that one. I knew that what I'd written wasn't right but didn't know how to correct it. Jonathan Tweet 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child Ballads

The Original Barnstar
For contributing so much to the Child Ballads articles, which I have recently discovered. You truly deserve the original barnstar. Keep up the wonderful work! -- Underneath-it-All 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!  :D Goldfritha 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi Goldfritha, I noticed you when you found an old and lost pic of Ragnar Lodbrok and reinserted it. Checking your edits I have seen that you are one of those hard-working, vandalism-reverting, and polite users who should be admins but have not yet been asked and may be too modest to nominate themselves. Are you interested in becoming an admin? I could nominate you if you'd like to.--Berig 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for thinking I would be good -- I've looked over the page about admins and am not sure -- I will certainly decide over the weekend. Goldfritha 01:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Goldfritha, I believe you should use edit summaries more often. In my experience, those who use edit summaries in 95% edits or even less often are unlikely to succeed on RfA. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Humm. Well, I think I would like to be a Wikipedian a little longer before I try for admin, not having being editting for a year now -- Still, thanks for the offer, Berig. Goldfritha 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Comedy Image

I'd just like to point you to my query on the Divine Comedy talk page. If you have any information about the image you considered especially appropriate for this article section (or if you have any information about what the image is, since no useful info is there at wikimedia), please respond. Thanks. Wareh 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] golden age and utopia

Some pastoral works of fiction depict life in an imaginary Arcadia as being a continuation of life in the Golden Age; the shepherds of such a land have not allowed themselves to be corrupted into civilization.

Could you cite your sources? Not only this is the WP rule, I also wonder what works feature the Golden Age Pictureuploader 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Drat. I should have kept them handy and done it up front. I will have to look them up and it will take some time. Sorry. Goldfritha 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premillennialism

Did you have anything in particular that you would like neutralized on the premillennialism article? I haven't felt like anything was said that isn't in a standard theological encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a theological encyclopedia, let alone a standard one. You should revise your standards for inclusion accordingly. Goldfritha 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairy tale compilations challenged

Not sure if you have an interest in getting involved, but A Book of Mermaids is having its notability challenged. I guess, hypothetically, this could eventually lead to the article being deleted, which would open the door for all of the articles on the Ruth Manning-Sanders books being deleted. So, just wanted to give you a heads up in case you wanted to join the fledgling discussion. Otto1970 05:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Goldfritha 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (fantasy)

Thanks for the invitation to comment on the Wizard (fantasy) article. I do not like that article at all, and the one editor who works on it and thinks he owns it is particularly irritating to try and negotiate with. (I won't name names, well..unless you ask, of course...:) I don't like the overkill focus on D&D (doesn't need two sections on that) and I don't like the "wise old man" copied word for word from it's original article, and I don't see a need to separate out fantasy Wizards from "real world" Wizards, nor a need to build some artificial wall between magic users when the "titles" such as "wizard" or "magician" or even "jedi" are used interchangably throughout fiction, fantasy, sci-fi and even real life.

I don't even like the wizard disambig page. It's weird.

Well, dang, I didn't mean to write that much. Guess I have a lot more thoughts on the subject than I thought! I have to agree with you and Snowfire over there. Let me see how I can assist. Thanks for the invite, and sorry to bend your ear like this! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't an administrator move the history? If not, I don't really see how it's important anyway, to tell the truth...the important stuff can be saved on the current article's talk page or in an archive. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lordy, this guy argues over everything doesn't he? Writes long, extended, hard to read monologues, then then edit wars on top of it. This is why I quit editing the article a long time ago, it's just not worth it. Dreadlocke ☥

Well, if he ever ignores a consensus on a RFC, there are higher authorities that can be invoked. Goldfritha 00:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. And thus far, consensus doth not goeth his way... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Humm. Humm. Humm.
Do you think a RFC on him, as a user, is suitable? Goldfritha 00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless he's done something more egregious than in the current discussion, I don't think it's time for a user RfC on him. We'll see how it goes after the redirect/delete RfC is over. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this: since Magicians in fantasy was apparently created from information culled from Magician and Wizard (fantasy), and according to jc37 who created the article, there is little to no content from Wizard (fantasy), then why do we even need an article that is mostly a copy of Magician? I think we need to move all the content from Magicians in fantasy to Magician, delete the first and redirect Wizard (fantasy) to Magician. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll expand it. Then it will not longer be a copy of Magician. 0:)
(Actually, I want to work on it but didn't want to deal with jc37's reverts all the time, so I want to get the article settled first. And the magician article actually has quite a bit that he didn't copy, and there are several sections in the magicians in fantasy were added after his edits.)
There are two issues: first, putting historical and fantasy magicians into one article might make for confusion, and second, the major one, is that I don't think jc37 will be happy with a redirect to Magician. As far as I can tell, the edit wars are stemming from an idiosyncratic view of what the term "wizard" means -- jc37 repeatedly has said that the type of wizards are distinct.
The second one is, of course, not a reason against a merge but a reason why it might not clear up the dispute. 0:) Goldfritha 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the redirect to the proper location! I believe we have consensus as well as Wikipedia policy and guideline on our side. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should continue arguing with him over the redirect issue, unless he tries to change it back. I disagree with every single one of the points in his last edit, including the part about WP:AGF. Let me know if you think differently. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Not feeling the least urge to argue myself, unless he takes silence for consent and changes it. (Man, what WP:OWN issues!) Goldfritha 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
He started again. This time he's un-archived (or is it de-archived? :) the entire talk page. Yep, definite ownership issues. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Joy and rapture.
We could let it go as long as he doesn't take silence for consent. Or we could -- let me see, I was asking about this here and got some suggestions. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#All_parties
And there's RFC on him, rather than the article, too. Goldfritha 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I tried the very long-winded, somewhat repetitive approach to see if I can get my (our) points across. I'm sure he'll just "cherry-pick" my comments and try to respond to individual sentences rather than the over-all message I was trying to present. If this one fails...well, he just has to go to mediation! I read your RfC messages, Centrix is a very helpful and knowlegable admin - he can be a big help! A good question to ask is "what is consensus?" Is it all editors finally agreeing, or is it majority/supermajority? And what about just a small group - say a group of only three or four editors where only a single one is the hold-out. What would be the next step? Mediation or Admin intervention? I hope it's the latter... <sigh> Dreadlocke ☥ 07:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we have consensus nailed down hard enough to make it "Admin intervention." (Sometime about unwillingness on editors to deal with this, I suspect.) Mediation, certainly -- if he tries something besides quarreling on the talk page. Goldfritha 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, the consensus was nailed down hard on the "delete" issue, and it was agreed that the history should be preserved. The latest act dissolves the connection between the redirect and its history. Goldfritha 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I made a request. You may look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wizard (fantasy). Goldfritha 04:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-fulfilling prophecy

Not every prophecy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the very actions that are taken in order to avoid the perceived prophecy are what set in motion the chain of events by which the prophecy is fulfilled. I think rather than using silent piped links, it would be best to briefly describe why a certain prophecy is self-fulfilling in each case, with a direct link. --Wetman 07:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you have a problem with an article, that you then mention that article. And since, yes, the very actions undertaken to prevent Telephus from fulfilling the oracle caused him to, it's a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Goldfritha 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry to be imprecise: it was at Telephus. I've left a note at Talk:Telephus expanding on what I posted just above, since I think it's unclear in many people's minds. --Wetman 12:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award!

The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your excellent work on the Magicians in fantasy article. - Dreadlocke ☥ 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.  :D Goldfritha 00:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detaching of history

Wow, don't that beat all! This definitely violates the spirit of the discussion, and is just a cheap trick. Let's see if we can't get it put back. I'm tempted to put in a user conduct RfC on this guy - this just goes beyond the bounds of how Wikipedia operates - by consensus and discussion, and following the Dispute Resolution steps. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you do, you can be sure that I will be there to confirm -- with details -- that he's been a problem. (They need two editors to complain to validate a request, so we have to coordinate it and make sure we can both post in the time frame). Goldfritha 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happened with the Admin notice board entry on this? Dreadlocke ☥ 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Everything with no new entries over a day old gets deleted.
You mentioned talking with an admin about the delete issue. Maybe you could go directly to him?
Otherwise, I think our options are the Request for Comment on the user. Goldfritha 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing from the admin yet. Not sure what's up, he's usually good at responding. Perhaps if you weighed in too: complaint. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The admin said he saw our conversation about he ANI entry, and was going to let it get decided there. I responded that the ANI request was removed because it went over the time-limit before anyone responded to it. Dreadlocke ☥
I put a new request on the ANI board and got an unsatisfactory response. I'm not certain they understand or want to deal with the issue. We can't go to mediation as the one admin suggests if jc37 doesn't respect us or the process, he's already bypassed the dispute resolution process, which includes mediation! They may not want to deal with it because there is so much to it. I certainly hope I never have to deal with jc37 again after this. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think if we could move back the history and point it to "Magicians in fantasy" we could go on from there. But then, I proposed moving "Wizard (fantasy)" to "Magicians in fantasy" as a compromise.Goldfritha 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP:RM looks like a good next step. Why don't we first undo what jc37 has done, and then go from there. Can you put in the request? I've got too many irons in the fire at the moment and I'm afraid my hair will catch alight if I try to keep'em too hot!  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dowry & Islamic marital jurisprudence

The article on Islamic marital jurisprudence talks of dowry. You hold this is incorrect. Whilst that page labels it dowry I expect editors to try to fix the entry at dowry by readding it. Paul foord 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Plopped a comment on the discussion page. Goldfritha 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French folklore

Have you looked at List of fairy tales for French ones? Goldfritha 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No I did not know about that really nice resource, thank you Goldfritha!Goldenrowley 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List of wizards in fantasy

Okay, there's obviously a dispute. I'm no mediator but it got brought to the admin's noticeboard so you got me. I've archived the previous stuff at Talk:List of wizards in fantasy, it was getting long and I could not make head nor tail of it. Now sometimes that is seen as a contentious move so let me reassure I'm not trying to close off debate, I'm just trying to wipe the slate clean and start again. Any issue you want to take from the archives and paste back on the talk page, please do so. What I would ask is that you don't right now. If you give me a week to try this attempt to resolve the dispute, then I'll move off if no headway is made. You can of course tell me to butt out now and I won't mind, I have better things to do now. What I would like, is for someone from either side help me out and explain what content has been moved where and where they think it should go. Keep it simple and don't point fingers, let's focus on the content. And pick one section to edit, A or B and don't edit the other. Just your own point of view, nothing responding to the other side at this point. Maybe if we work through this we can work out the best way to solve it. I have the impression it might all get solved by the requested move process, but I want to make sure the page history is all in one place so that the requested move can be set up properly. Then I suggest all sides allow a consensus to be built on the requested move and we work form there. I'm going to be taking the view that we request the move from where the content is now. That's not an endorsement, rather think of it as a wrong version issue. I hope this issue can get sorted out, because continuing disputes do no-one any favours. Thanks for your time. Steve block Talk 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I've had to withdraw from this, I apologise for messing you about. I simply don't feel like I have the time and energy to devote to mediation. As I indicated above, I'm not a mediator. I feel you may be best served requesting a move through requested move and seeking mediation, if you can get all parties to agree. Good luck, and once again I apologise. Steve block Talk 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice RM! Hopefully it will go through without issue. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope so, but we had best watch it. (Then, you noticed it even before I alerted you to it.) Goldfritha 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What's to be done with the contents of "lists of magicians in fantasy"? Will it be moved back to "Wizard (fantasy) as well? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
splitting out such a list from such an article would be fine, so I think letting it stand would be best -- unless it would convince jc37, in which case, merge. Goldfritha 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No action on the move yet, eh? Also, my thought is that the RfD tag isn't for the "list" article, but for the Wizard (fantasy) redirect. Perhaps you're right, it should be left but we have to make it clear that the "keep" was referring to the redirect and not the article it's currently on - a very important distinction, I would think. Then again, I'm recovering from the flu, and my brain is not what it should be yet... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really for the history, which is what has been moved, so the delete request should follow it. Besides, the link lets us refer to the debate.
Did you see the latest comments? jc37 seems to think his parading of his history of edits means something. Goldfritha 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I know, it's weird. I have no idea what his diffs are supposed to prove. Sounds like Steve Block has a solid grip on what's happening. I just don't understand how jc37 can't see it...or maybe he just won't admit it. I like the way he's opposing the move (back) of the original move we opposed, an opposition which he ignored. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Gee, no action on the RM yet. Wonder what the problem is? Has anyone communicated anything to you? (besides the usual suspects, that is?...heh) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
With Jc37 chiming in, they may have decided that the move is controversial. Goldfritha 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if they let us know. If that fails, then what? Can we have the current Wizard (fantasy) article deleted (it has no history and no function, really). Then move the lists page back and clean up the content from there? This is really ridiculous that he just does with impunity, and we have to beg for scraps. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We could do it too. It just wouldn't be right. Goldfritha 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What other way is there besides convincing Mr. Unconvincible? I think what he did was wrong and we're just putting the pieces back to where they belong. I think it's wrong of us to just let him get away with such an abuse. Hmph.  :D Dreadlocke ☥ 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they did find it controversial, [1], so that's not gonna work. I propose we move "Wizard (fantasy)" to "Fantasy wizards" as a redirect as is, then move "list of magicians" to "Wizard (fantasy)", create another "list of magicians", copy paste the contents there, then put the redirect back to what it was originally. THEN we're back to where we were before the violation by jc, and we can discuss from that point. What do you think? Dreadlocke ☥ 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Moving creates a redirect. If we can move over it, we can just move "List" back to "Wizard (fantasy)". Goldfritha 02:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So, we should move "list" on top of Wizard (fantasy), then create a new "list" to cut/paste the content to? Or visa-versa? I'm not real clear on what you mean...heck, I'm not real clear on what I said either... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't move it to an existing article name, I tried it: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists," Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that "undiscussed moves" discussion, I hope something comes out of that - but it doesn't really look like it will. I'm not sure what I'm looking for on the discussion page for Magician (fantasy) about this, what am I missing? Dreadlocke ☥ 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there are still redirects on the talk pages too - (on the Wizard (fantasy) discussion page...redirected to Talk:Magician (fantasy). Dreadlocke ☥ 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, it look like we actually got the move we asked for! Or am I missing something? Now we need to create a new "List of fantasy wizards", right? Dreadlocke ☥ 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Och! We did get our move! I didn't see the final decision, even though it was outlined in a big green block! Hurrah!! Huzzah! Now, what next?  :-D Dreadlocke ☥ 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Our move? The history of "Wizard (fantasy)" is still at "List of wizards in fantasy". That was the only move I was interested in. Goldfritha 02:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, guess I'm totally confused now. Who requested that move? Or was it just a mistake? Dreadlocke ☥ 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it was just a mistake. I think that he went to move the magic, got redirected, and didn't realize it.
I made a comment on his talk page. Goldfritha 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Me too, I actually left instructions. Please check them out and make sure they're right...Dreadlocke ☥ 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Now jc's contradicting himself in the same post: [2]. Sheesh. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child and other ballads

Hi, Goldfritha!

I've got a little more time to work with ballads, now; so I have started making short articles about the 263 Swedish ones contained in Sveriges Medeltida Ballader. (It's slow work; I've about 240 left to do; I do appreciate your enormous work with the Child ballads, even more than before.) I've got a couple of questions; and as usual (lacking that 'popular ballads project') I find it most useful to start by asking you directly.

  • First: Are the 'spoiler warnings' at synopses really sensible, in articles like e.g. Robin_Hood's Golden Prize? Spontaneously, I think the most accurate warning before a synopsis of a couple of lines would be "Spoiler warning: This synopsis contains a synopsis", or something like that. I do notice that there has been some discussion of this at WP:SW, without a real resolution. Well, since this is a minor point, and partly about good taste; and since the WP motto doesn't seem to be De gustibus non disputandem but rather the converse, I'll leave it for now. Anyhow, I'm not including any spoiler warnings in my summary sections.
  • Second: I think that articles about the same 'ballad type' (as more or less well defined by ballad researchers) in different languages should be wikisister articles. Each one should fokus on the variants in its own language, if there are such; but mention the others, and perhaps add information of plot differences, if they are of sufficient relevance. In other words, both Child, Grundtvig, and modern ballad researchers recognise that The Twa Sisters and De två systrarna are 'the same ballad', but in different languages; therefore, there should not be separate articles in English for them (and yet another for the Danish Den talende strængelek, et cetera). Instead, they should be set up as versions of each others, but with somewhat different emphasis. The ballad lists should be given in all the different languages, but the 'foreign' titles should redirect to the proper 'native' pages. I've more or less fixed Child 10 and Child 22 in this way; but I have not added sections Parallels in other languages to 'your' articles (yet).

This policy does not apply for ballads which only exist in one language, as I believe the Robin Hood Child ballads do. Someone included stubs for some of these in Swedish; and whether retained as separate items or being treated in a common article, they should of course be named in English and refer to the English texts.

Do you generally agree with this organisation?

  • Forth: Do you actually happen to own (or else have easy access to) The English and Scottish Popular Ballads? I've looked in some copy once, and found a number of references to nordic ballads there. One of my trouble is to find an actual list of the correspondences; they are not always as obvious as for The Twa Sisters or St. Stephen and Herod.
  • Fifth and finally: Do you know anything about an edition of Danish ballads (in English?) by a Dr. Prior, mentioned here?

Yours, JoergenB 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I heartily agree that the "same" ballad in different languages is proper for wikisister.
A list certainly would help keep things organized.
I can get English and Scottish Popular Ballads out of the library. If you have specific questions, I can look them up much faster, but I can certainly look through it for information.
No, except that because it is in quotes, the actual title of the work is probably Danish Ballads. Goldfritha 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I separated a List of the Child Ballads, and added || (i.e., 'parallel') information for The Twa Sisters. What do you think?--JoergenB 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Goldfritha 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again!

  • I remembered I had some old ballad collection fragment in English somewhere; searched, and found that it actually was volume II (out of five) of a diplomataric edition of The English and Scottish... by Dover publications, Inc, New York, 1965! So, I should search through odd places in my book shelfs before I send you off to the library... This volume contains Child ballads 54–113, and a few 'additions and corrections' to older volumes. The only red link I found in that rank was number 56, which I filled with Dives and Lazarus (ballad).
I was actually both encouraged and a bit disappointed by going through Child's comments to the ballads. He does discuss parallels, both Scandinavian and others, providing good ground for a number of See also's. However, his types and the TSB types seem to coincide less frequently than I hoped and thought. Thus, I now estimate that it is possible to have a merged article for the same ballad type in English and Scandinavian languages for less than 10 % of the Child ballads, if we follow the typing as read off directly from Child's comments. I actually hoped that most of them should be found equal by this simple manoevre. (I still haven't checked the type translation listings on Svenskt visarkiv; this may or may not improve things.)
  • I am still working with the (Swedish version of) list of Swedish medieval ballads, but not so actively lately. I got some criticism for putting a too large emphasis on the historical side as compared to the usage in current tradition (in the few cases where there is one, as for some Christmas carol and jocular ballads), and I've not yet decided how to handle this. I might want to rewrite the thirty-odd articles I have, before writing the other 230.

[edit] Template:Catholic-link

A deletion discussion in which you voted, that of Template:Catholic-link, is up for deletion review, where the template may be deleted or retained depending upon the review discussion. You are welcome to comment and/or vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link. The key point of this discussion is whether the "default keep by no consensus" result was correct; discussion of the template itself is secondary (but may still be important). — coelacan talk — 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Poverty - please vote

I think the poverty article would benefit from this Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive --since you have help a lot with it please cast your vote.futurebird 17:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template "recentism" is up for deletion

here You might be interested since you kindly pointed its existance out to me. Johnbod 17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Goldfritha, thanks for restoring the mention of those templates to WP:RFC. Not wanting to edit-war, I had put a note on Centrx's talk page asking for reconsideration, but, since Centrx had apparently logged off for the night, I might have sat the long hours chewing my fingernails to the elbows, making my typing skills even more abysmal, impossible as that may sound. Thus my fingers, hands, wrists, and forearms owe you a great debt of gratitude. Thanks again! -- Ben 04:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome -- I just happened to notice the problem in my watchlist. Goldfritha 15:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairy Tales

Thats a really good article you've worked on there. I've made a comment on the FAC page about the lack of Roland Barthes but I wouldn't take that too seriously. Hope the article passes!-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agenda?

I have a question for you: What do you think my supposed agenda is in adding Chinese material to the Knight-errant page? As I’ve previously stated, I am a westerner and not Chinese. However, as you put it, “Being a westerner does not demonstrate that [I] have no agenda.” You’ve got me curious now. Is it because I’m fighting to keep my fully cited material on the page? I would fight for any cited material on the knight-errant article to stay. Is it because medieval historians are weary about classifying aspects of other cultures in European terms (like the whole mess about the Indian feudalism thing)? If I personally was assigning these terms to the warriors of China, I would be in conflict with Chinese historians, right? However, I’m not making the term up; it was Chinese historians and teachers of comparative literature that entitled these warriors “Knights-errant” themselves. Is it because my participation in various Asian-based wikiprojects makes you think I'm biased in someway? Well, if you go to my user page, you will also see that I belong to medieval history and warfare projects as well. I love reading about the crusades and have many books on the subject. In fact, I'm an athiest, but yet I belong to several religious wikiprojects. What else could it be? Please enlighten me. (Ghostexorcist 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Lazarus and Dives RFC

An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Dear Goldfritha,

I noticed your work on another WP article and I was wondering if you could provide some feedback on the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I nominated it in the FAC process and am interested in getting your opinion about it. Thank you so much for any help! I really appreciate it! LaSaltarella 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairy tale

The Original Barnstar
To Goldfritha, for answering all comers during FAC review and making Fairy tale a featured article. Well done! -Susanlesch 20:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ya beat me to it...;) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both. :D Goldfritha 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fantasy Painting

I've never nominated an AfD before, and the procedure looks rather daunting. Would you be willing to do it? If not, I guess I'll take a stab at it. Let me know on my Talk page, please. Deor 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's up. You can go comment. 0:) Goldfritha 01:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Deor 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Sword

Sorry, I thought Magic Sword should have a dictionary article too, didn't know that was the wrong process.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Story of the day project

I know you like stories so i would like you to know about the Story of the day project The goal of the project is too have a new story every day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Story_of_the_day


I would like it if you could spread the word and participate


please tell me on my user page when you get this message


by the way my user name is Java7837


[edit] Apologies

I'm very sorry for the protocol violation. I was trying to get to this page and didn't find it. Your user page said that you are not very communicative, so I thought you might not have a user talk page and did not keep looking long enough (obviously). I'm still trying to get used to the navigation here. Please don't hold it against me as rudeness or sabotage, just ignorance (or hopeless stupidity, if you prefer). I am trying to avoid making mistakes and only wanted more clarification of why we should not capitalize "Gods". Anyway, the Faroe stamps at Ragnarok were very cool. Again, my heartfelt apologies. Remiguisburg 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the explanation in my edit summary: common noun. Goldfritha 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Controversy

When I'm not mistaken (part of) the following text is yours: "Third phase - Main article: Synod of Whitby - The Roman missionaries coming to England in the time of St. Gregory the Great found the British Christians, the representatives of that Christianity which had been introduced into Britain during the period of the Roman occupation, still adhering to an ancient system of Easter computation which Rome itself had laid aside. The British and Irish Christians were not Quartodecimans, for they kept the Easter festival upon a Sunday. They are supposed (e.g. by Krusch) to have observed an eighty-four year cycle and not the five-hundred and thirty-two year cycle of Victorius which was adopted in Gaul, but the most recent investigator of the question (Schwartz, p. 103) declares it to be impossible to determine what system they followed and himself inclines to the opinion that they derived their rule for the determining of Easter direct from Asia Minor."

Could you give me more specification or where to find the text by Schwartz on the direct link with Asia Minor? Harry Stoteles 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops.
The wonders of cut-and-paste. That comes directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia. You can find the link at the bottom of the article, and it has more info. Goldfritha 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic item

Your reversion to Magic item[3] didn't quite make sense to me. These are very specific examples such as the flying carpet and seven-league boots. Clearly these aren't general categories. So, why the attachment to the word "types"? Also, what was wrong with the rest of the text? -Harmil 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Those types are very general, encompassing a great many magical items, with a great deal of variety, under their rubrics. Goldfritha 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YOUR SO RIGHT!!!

I read your article thing on Flowerpotman's page about how deletion is not vandalsim and YOU ARE RIGHT!!!! i think it is to improve... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WOW Teeandbee77 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/l/User_talk%7EGoldfritha_0e1f.html"