User talk:Wiglaf.archive 3

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] Old Norse

hi Wiglaf -- I'll get involved; at the moment I'd probably just shout at him though, and I think I need some more leisure first. You have cute offspring btw, judging from your User page :) cheers, dab (ᛏ) 09:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crimean Goths

Hi Briangotts, I think you have written a very good article on the Crimean Goths. Although, I understood what you meant, I preferred to change the phrasing ancestral homelands, since I am working on articles concerning earlier ancestral homelands.--Wiglaf 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. However, "temporary homeland" didn't sound right either. Is it temporary if the Goths lived there for a few centuries before moving on? And it certainly wasn't temporary for the ones who stayed in the Crimea. I've changed the wording to a more neutral "those that remained in the lands around the Black Sea, especially in the Crimea." OK with you? --Briangotts 14:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Norse verbs

Hi Wiglaf, I'm very impressed by your work on Scandinavian affairs. It seems you are the right person to help with a small collaborative project. To put this in context, I've been doing a fair bit on Germanic verbs etc, and there is now a complex of articles which are supposed to operate together in order to give a full picture of these. The overview article under which the rest are ordered is Germanic verb. People are very interested in the history and inter-relationships of our languages, but most of the material which is offered is fairly superficial. So I have been blitzing the verb as that seems as good a place as any to start a more thorough presentation. But I have no competence in North Germanic. Could I persuade you to get involved in this? Here's what seems to me to be needed right away:

  • The article North Germanic strong verb is empty. I set it up as a placemarker, but can't put anything into it. If you look at the article I wrote on the West Germanic strong verb you will see what I have in mind. Something more or less parallel, preferably even with the same structure of sections for easy cross-reference, would be wonderful.
  • The overview article Germanic verb lacks an awareness of North Germanic aspects. I don't know what is needed there, but you will know yourself when you see it. It should not be too detailed, but should provide orientation and point to the real articles.
  • The article Germanic weak verb focusses exclusively on West Germanic. I should think it would be best to include North Germanic there; the weak verbs are far less complex than the strong ones, and I don't think splitting this up into East/West/North is necessary.
  • Does North Germanic have preterite-present verbs? If so, that article needs some input from you too. But it is still pretty sketchy even from the WG point of view.
  • Do look at the articles Ablaut and Umlaut, which I have also been working on. I think they are pretty good as they are, but who knows, maybe as a Scandinavian expert you will have something brilliant to add there. --Doric Loon 14:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Licence

Hello! Where is the source of this picture? Can I upload to japanese Wikipedia? --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 04:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll upload your maps after this(maybe). And your daughter is lovely. --Sheynhertz.

[edit] Arheimar

Hi, Wiglaf. You said:

Jemiller, either you suggest that Arheimar be listed for deletion, or you expand the article. AFAIK, the article can not be expanded beyond stub status. There is a reason for the notstub to exist.

My apologies. I didn't check your user page, so I wasn't aware of your large contributions to articles on historic subjects. I've just seen a small rash of completely unnecessary reversions and edits lately on stubs that I've sorted, and I assumed that yours was really no different, especially since you didn't mention anything about it on the article's talk page, and you left the edit summary blank. I can't claim any amount of knowledge in this area, though a Google search for Arheimar found sites that make a connection to Kiev, which might be an interesting thing to explore--again, if I had any expertise in this field. At any rate, I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but I'm not going to expand it, either. I'll only make a fool of myself, since I'm just a little stub sorter. =) --Jemiller226 21:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walha

much better, thanks. but when did they block Germanic expansion? At a time they were still at the Rhine? Or is the "Rhine" connection just fanciful speculation? After all, they live much further south in historical times (sorry, I'm out of my element & just hacking together internet sources). dab (ᛏ) 21:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

no, it's fine. I just wonder, did the "block" take place in the 2nd c. BC, or only in the 3rd c. AD. Since the Volcae Tectosages seem to have reached Aquitania in the 3rd c. BC, the former would need to apply if we want to uphold the "Rhine" idea. But then the etymology may be wrong, or it may refer to the Rhone rather than the Rhine.

[edit] maps

btw, we could delete Image:Celts 800-400BC v2.png on en: and re-upload it as Image:Celts 800-400BC.png to commons. No need to re-upload the same image to every language version of Wikipedia (also goes for your other maps). regards, dab (ᛏ) 21:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ok, I deleted your "v2" image and uploaded it to commons (and adjusted the link on Celt). I still messed up, as I confused "PNG" and "png" so that both versions are on commons now (where I am not an admin either). dab (ᛏ) 22:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

Greetings Wiglaf. I was reading the article and it occurs to me that agriculture is a major defining feature of a culture itself. The language groups can stay the same, but once they practise farming they have a different culture. So, farming/pastoral culture is a radically different culture than hunting/gathering, in other words, even if they are using many of the same words! :-) I think that the only problem for me is one of semantics; with the defining word "culture" itself then, the ideas themselves in that article are fine. Maybe "feature of culture" or "aspect of culture" could be plugged in with the older wording? Fire Star 16:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Askefruer

You'd better take a look one what I've done with the Askefruer page, and re-edit it if I have gone to far. I don't want to be rude to fellow Wikipedians. Salleman 00:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] problem users

hi Wiglaf -- if the user refuses to communicate (and just maintaining he is right in broken English does not count), it's easy. You just revert his edits, saying you do so for lack of references in the edit summaries first, but just rolling back later. The case will only be problematic if the user comes out with kooky fringe science references, like Antifinnugor did. Then you may have to show good grace and include outrageous and discredited claims, of course saying that they are such. For "just reverting" the user, you need to outnumber him of course. Which in the case of real crackpots should be no problem. They usually will try some really pathetic attempt at sockpuppetry, resort to name calling and some vandalism if they have that temper, and finally lose interest. I will put the Suiones and the "dubious Danish kings" (what sort of title is that?? shouldn't that be "legendary kings" or something?), helping you out with the occasional revert if things should get heated. You should of course open an rfc after some time, if things get ugly. If you are really obviously the sane party, the RfC will bring you moral and editorial support, and will be the first step of the kooky party to become frustrated and lose interest. dab (ᛏ) 17:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

no problem, the more obvious the trolling the easier to revert. The really problematic cases are those cranks who are terribly serious. Maybe his attention span is just very short, and he has already entered the frustration/vandalism phase. dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC and Swedish language PR

Thank you very much for commenting the RfC. Even if it was just an endorsement of dab's comments, all input from outsiders is helpful and I genuinely appreciate the input.

I have submitted Swedish language for peer review. I've already gotten some very good comments and very qualified objections. Since I've noticed you seem quite competent in linguistic matters (as well as being a native Swede yourself), I would very much like your comments as well. Any contributions to the article, are of course more than welcomed. Since you seem to be specialized in matters of Old Norse and such, I would imagine that you could have quite a lot to add to the history section. In particular on Runic Swedish.

Peter Isotalo 22:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping out with the expansion of the History section.
Peter Isotalo 12:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigrid the Haughty

Hi Wiglaf! I've noticed your changes to the article about Sigird the Haughty. You have changed sentence that Burislav "most probably" was compound of Mieszko and Boleslav into "possibly" and that it is Polish hypothesis. You have also changed "saga" authors into "scandinavian". I wonder what is your rational behind those changes? I've seen no mainstream historian arguing with that statements, in English or in Polish. I've seen German historians (especially from before the war) which were trying to prove that she was anything but not Slavic.

I would be delighted to see your sources and what modern Scandinavian historians think about the issue (since indeed, SAGA authors, which came from few centuries later, mention that her father was someone else than Mieszko; but medieval contemporary CHRONICLERS IIRC all are supporting vision that she was daughter of Mieszko). Szopen 07:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiglaf, but Saxo is taking his informations from the sagas, right? And I think he is not saying that Sigrid is daughter of daughetr of Skogul, but he just wrote that wife of Eric and then Swen was "Syritha" and nothing more.

And what are saying contemporary chroniclers:

Thietmar wroite that daughter of Mieszko and sister of Boleslaw married Swen (he had not given name) and gave him son Cnut and Harald.

Adam from Bremen said that Polish princess was married to Eric, and that she was mother of Cnut and Harald.

In addition we know, that Knut daughter had name "Santslaue" which definetely seems Slavic. (facsimile is scanned here: http://main.amu.edu.pl/~bkpan/SIGRID/abbey.htm) (Umm or is soror a sister? or a daughter? I can't remember my Latin well :)) )

See the sources for Sigrid/Switoslawa: http://main.amu.edu.pl/~bkpan/SIGRID/sigrid.htm Note, that this is not "Polish" hypothesis, since first men who derived Swietoslawa was J. Steenstrup

Cnutonis regis also said that mother of Cnut was SLavic.

You see? All contemporary sources said she was at least Slavic and probably Polish. Only sagas (from Iceland) put her identity differently. As sagas are known for inventing also other events (like whole Jomsborg myth for example) they are not very reliable. agreed that Sigrid may not equal Swietoslawa, but "Swietoslawa" definetely was mother of Canute and Harold (unless you thnk that Thietmar, who was living in that times and was well-informed in Polish and Danish affair, was wrong) Forgot to sign :) Szopen 12:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish hundreds

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 13 and the nomination for deletion of Category:Hundreds of Sweden. u p p l a n d 09:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you on the issue of keeping the articles, but the category duplicates another category. I will however change my vote again, as I am annoyed over the way the nomination was made. u p p l a n d 11:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] more Balts

hey Wiglaf -- the baltic patriots are at it on Indo-European languages again, your help is very welcome (why do we even bother, I sometimes wonder ;) dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks. his block expires in a couple of minutes an hour (David made it short because it's a 16 bit range block), and I'm calling it a day. Not very urgent, his version is not disastrous, it's just about getting accross that we have means to deal with stubborn edit warring. dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply on Housecarls

I never said anything about Housecarl vs Huscarl so far as I know (but maybe I am getting [more] senile). I searched back through what I could find in contributions and I think all I did was to replace "less" by "fewer". I tend to think of "less" more for bulk items, like less sugar, less patience, less space, while I think (in my dotage) of "few" and "fewer" as applying to items one can count, like fewer sugar cubes, fewer patient moments, fewer rooms, and, sadly, fewer dollars and fewer years remaining. If you prefer "less housecarls" (or huscarls) please feel free to change the wording back. I ran into Huscarls by hitting random links and I typically change spelling and sentence structure for clarity (in my view); many referents are far from their antecedents, I often find, so one doesn't know which one is intended to be referred to, the nearer or the farther, so to speak. By the way, I do not know how to create a separate editable entry so, my apologies, this reply is under "more Balts". (hint hint - you are most welcome to give me the new-entry syntax for a talk page.) Pdn 20:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Accident

I plead ignorant until proven stupid. I am sorry I did not mean to monkey with Huscarl vs Housecarl. All I meant to do was change "less"->"few" or "fewer" or whatever. Thank you for restoring sense to it all. M. Culpa (alias Pdn 01:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Wiki Software Failure (I think)

I went back and looked at my edit (less->fewer) and I doubt that I wiped out a redirect. I think it was a Wiki software glitch. Just think - the user who obviously wanted to be "Dyslexia" seems to have the ID "Lysdexia" - there are wild cards somewhere  :-) . Pdn 01:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wikistress

hey Wiglaf (great, more maps every time I check your user page :) — I am sorry if I have goaded you into more pov-pusher-sitting than you are comfortable with. You sound a bit terse, e.g. on the Swedish page. Anyway, remember, it's just Wikipedia, if you feel the wikistress taking over, just shrug it off and leave it to others to clean up the mess ;) best regards, dab (ᛏ) 16:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

oh my! Dan the Viking is harrying the shores of English Wikipedia again? So far I see no evidence of looting or pillaging on the histories of Viking or Viking Age, but I am bracing myself :) dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
you've been RFA'd ;o) dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Eric/Eric I of Sweden

I noted that Saint Eric has his feast day on May 18, so I decided to see if there was an article. Well, the Eric I link on the Eric dab leads to your article on the saga Erics. Does this mean that there is no article on Eric I of Sweden (asc. 1150, d. 1160/1161), or is the link on the dab broken? The last thing I want to do is start working on a Scandinavian royal bio when I know nothing of the subject, but this is too major a saint to be unlinked, IMO. Geogre 14:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone had even told me about that "let's claim all the mythological kings" stuff, but I had forgotten it. I'll adjust the link on May 18 so that it refers to Eric IX of Sweden. Geogre 17:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC re Zivinbudas

I have started an RfC against Zivinbudas for his behavior on Indo-European languages. Please feel free to comment! --Angr/comhrá 22:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for signing! But if I understand the RfC process correctly, in order to sign under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" you need to provide evidence of yourself trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Otherwise you sign under "Other users who endorse this summary". --Angr/comhrá 06:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I thought I signed in the right place since I am mentioned several times in the complaint.--Wiglaf 06:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Surely, people who have been involved should not count as "other users".--Wiglaf 06:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You may be right; I don't know for sure. But the page says "The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~", which to me means either you count as a complainant, in which case you have to provide evidence that you tried to discuss the problem with him, or else you count as an"other user". --Angr/comhrá 06:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Relax, I have added one and I am looking for more.--Wiglaf 06:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't upset; I was just sayin'... ;-) --Angr/comhrá 06:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Norse names standard

Okay, once more into the breech. I've drafted a proposal which I hope is consistent with what you had in mind. Feel free to change it to your liking.

User:Haukurth/Old_Norse_names

The proposal is currently restricted to Old Norse mythology. There are even more difficult issues elsewhere, though. What name should Wikipedia use for king Óláfr Haraldsson of Norway? Currently articles on Norwegian history seem to mostly use modern Norwegian versions of the names of historical characters. But would Old Norse forms be more appropriate? See Battle of Stiklestad for an example where I've inserted ON versions within parentheses.

I think we might be best off limiting our standard to mythology for the time being. Haukurth 16:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative encyclopedia studies

I checked the 1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (something I happen to own, I think I got it with an issue of PC Format many years ago) for its treatment of Old Norse names. As one would expect the quality is poor and consistency is not maintained. Here are some examples:

Gleipnir is quoted as "Gleipher", cute little typo. Skrímnir is referred to as "Schrimnir". I suppose the source for that was German. In any case the ending -ir is not treated consistently. Then we have "Heiðrún" as "Heldrun", another cute misspelling. Loki's wife, Sigyn, becomes "Siguna", I don't even know where that comes from.

Most of their mythology articles would be labelled stubs on Wikipedia. And to think that someone ever paid money for this :)

Haukurth 21:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The new ON proposal

I agree with your third exception, it makes the standard more flexible and reasonable.

I've put the proposal (with minor changes) here:

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Old_Norse/Old_Icelandic/Old_English)

Haukurth 13:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O-ogonek and oe-ligature

The problem, as I see it, is that neither o-ogonek nor oe-ligature can, to the best of my knowledge, currently be used in page titles on Wikipedia. Thus I don't think it's possible to create a page like Hœnir and have it show up correctly. We could use Hœnir inside the article and Hoenir as the article title, which was my original proposal. Similarly we could use Höðr as an article title and Hǫðr inside the article. Alternatively we could use Hoenir and Höðr throughout. I'd be fine with either possibility.

As you point out oe-ligature is used in many languages. It would be interesting to know how those are handled on Wikipedia.

Haukurth 13:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoenir/Hœnir + Höðr it is then

All right. I changed the standard proposal to a version I hope represents your view. Haukurth 14:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. As for the borderline cases, like the semi-legendary kings, I think we should start by applying the standard to the mythology proper and then we can look to expanding use of it. Haukurth 15:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valkyrie article

I'm working on the article now. My intention is certainly to leave it more complete than I found it. I removed the following for the following reasons:

"valrkyrja" - This is not an actual (or possible) Old Norse form.

Old High German: walachuriá; Gothic: valakusjó; Old English: wælcyrge - This is misleading. I don't think any ancient German or English texts mentions the valkyries. Gothic certainly doesn't. Googling these terms I seem to find only Wikipedia mirrors for the German and Gothic ones. My guess is that these are reconstructed words. The English term is attested elsewhere but it means 'raven'. This should be mentioned in the article but it's misleading to give the word as a synonym for 'valkyrja'.

The valkyries are lesser goddesses (dís, pl. dísir) - I think the 'dísir' connection is slightly misleading and needs more qualifications. I made do with "minor deities" for the time being.

Haukurth 19:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've finished editing valkyrie for now. Please let me know if you think I've diminished the quality of the article. Haukurth 02:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Not at all, it's good :), but now there probably is a number of orphan articles, which should either be linked or deleted.--Wiglaf 04:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop changing the article Igor

I did not vandalise that page, I simply moved the rest of the information to fictional character igor It is more logical this way, as Igor is a popular name, yet you only had two lines on the name and ten on the lab assistant.

[edit] First comment we get on the proposed spelling standard

Tabor made a comment on my talk page regarding our new spelling standard and I replied on his talk page. Haukurth 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! I wish I'd come across it earlier, you would certainly have had my full support! (Obviously, you have it — I know you'll be a great admin) — mark ✎ 18:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Me too!

Happy adminning! Block! Ban! Zap zap! (Just kidding.) Bishonen | talk 16:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Congratulations on your promotion and keep up the good work. Best wishes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well done! And no probs with the support. You'll be a fine admin. Grutness...wha? 21:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Courteous of you to thank me ... it shows just how appropriate it was for me to support yoyu. My your adminship be a fine one. --Theo (Talk) 22:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No worries, good luck! --Silversmith Hewwo 22:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Supporting your nomination was my pleasure! Good luck! --Canderson7 23:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • you are welcome — see, no problem at all. Enjoy your break & happy adminning! dab (ᛏ) 07:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess I'll have to join in then. Just so you know, I have made a statement about Thuresson's very inappropriate behavior in your RfA and on his talk page, just to get it on the record. I must say that you handled him admirably; I would've had a hard time not calling him names if I had been in your situation... / Peter Isotalo 07:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Thanks for the compliment. --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Je suis sûr que tu feras un super administrateur! --Philipum 12:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, cheers! Congratulations and I hope you enjoy your new buttons. Fire Star 04:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work!

--Jondel 00:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Vfd at Michael Kearney

I would like to request removal of Vfd at Michael Kearney in line with prescribed time frame.--Jondel 01:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A missing saga?

I was editing Ghost (don't ask; it's a mess, and it's not my mess, but I thought I'd help the literature section), and I indicated that there are hauntings in Eyrbyggja Saga. Guess what color that link is? Well, I read the saga. I enjoyed it somewhat, but I sure didn't make notes on its labyrinthine plot and large cast of characters. Just thought I'd point out yet another ON saga that doesn't have an article, in case you had it in mind to fill in the blank. Geogre 03:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viking chess

A question to Wiglaf: when I visited the Viking museum in Gamla Uppala, they showed and sold a chess variant that they claimed was a Viking (or nordic, or scandinavian?) one. One army had a King and its goal was to place the King in the central square of the bord, and the other army had no King and its goal was to catch the King enemy. Other pieces were only pawns, they could move as many squares as they wanted without jumping and could catch other pawns by surrounding them on two sides if I remember correctly. Do you know if this can truely be a scandinavian chess variant? Was it played by the Vikings? And what is its name? I would like to include it into the list of chess variants. --Philipum 12:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Could it be the game TÆFL ("Table") or Cyningtaefl ("King's Table") described at [1]? Fire Star 04:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
There is an article on the game at tafl.--Wiglaf 20:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)