User talk:Berig/Archive 12 (April 1, 2021 - October 12, 2021)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Question
editI appreciate the lock that you made on Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated but why an infinite block? It was only one user who made that vandalism.
- It had been protected several times before, and a request for infinite was requested.--Berig (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
edit
|
Editor of the Week | |
| Your improvement of the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your ongoing efforts to create concensus. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Krakkos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- I nominate Berig to be Editor of the Week. A veteran editor and administrator active since the earliest days of Wikipedia, Berig has a Ph.D. in linguistics and is an educator by profession. He has created and substantially contributed to hundreds of articles, particularly on subjects such as Germanic peoples, runology and the Viking Age. Significant contributions by Berig include the articles Greece runestones, Midvinterblot and Norse funeral. These topics are complicated and often controversial, and Berig's participation in such discussions frequently contributes to the establishment of a consensus based on sound conclusions.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
|
|
|
| Narke--A Province of Sweden |
| Berig |
| Editor of the Week for the week beginning April 18.2021 |
| Veteran editor, administrator and educator with a Ph.D. in linguistics. Created and substantially contributed to hundreds of complicated and controversial articles on varied subjects such as Germanic peoples, runology and the Viking Age. Berig's frequently contributes to the establishment of a consensus based on sound conclusions. |
| Recognized for |
| creating consensus |
| Notable work(s) |
| Greece runestones, Midvinterblot and Norse funeral |
| Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well deserved, congratulations!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! :-) I didn't know I was nominated so this was a surprise!--Berig (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well done, Krakkos, well-deserved indeed :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Yngvadottir :-)--Berig (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Congratulations on a well deserved award, Berig! Krakkos (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Krakkos, and thanks for nominating me :-)--Berig (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Congrats my friend! Alcaios (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merci beaucoup, cher ami!--Berig (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
ANI Notice
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Photo-Rosengaten zu Worms
editHi, your photo upload from the German university, Walther von Kerlingen und Hartunc.png, is not "duel of Walther of Kerlingen and Hartunc".
It is "Walther von Wasgenstein" and "Dietlieb".
Perhaps it seems unimportant, but it is a vital detail. Thanks. 120.29.109.137 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Both "Walther von Wasgenstein and Walther von Kerlingen are names for the figure we call Walter of Aquitaine here on Wikipedia. I'm having trouble reading the manuscript rubric that captions the depiction in the image, all I can make out is "Hie stritet walth???? "zur burgen?" What I'm reading as "zur burgen" is "in Burgundy" and refers to the location in Worms. I actually can't find a d in the line. There is an H though, and Gillespie tells us that Hertnit von Riuzen fights against Walter in the Rosengarten. I believe the end of the rubric line reads "Harttunc(?) von ryeszen" - Hartung and Hertnit are used interchangeably sometimes. That being the case, the image caption at Rosengarten shouldn't say he's fighting Dietleib.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just to back up my points: The Heidelberg Rosengarten is version Version DP, AKA Vulgat-Fassung D according to Heinzle Einführung in die mittelhochdeutsche Dietrichepik, pp. 170, 172. In his summary of the combats in this version, Heinzle says
(p. 177).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Walther von Kerlinc (Frankreich) gegen Hartnit von Riuzen
- Just to back up my points: The Heidelberg Rosengarten is version Version DP, AKA Vulgat-Fassung D according to Heinzle Einführung in die mittelhochdeutsche Dietrichepik, pp. 170, 172. In his summary of the combats in this version, Heinzle says
Berserker
editHi Berig: I am almost up to my limit of edits for this month, so rather than edit Berserker, I'm putting this concern here. Since I know you're busy, I'll widen the circle by pinging Bloodofox and Krakkos. The same IP with the image concern above has inserted a long passage in the Berserker article on non-Norse wolf-associated warriors. I think it's misplaced and inadequately referenced, and it also requires copyediting including in the references (anyone copyediting it should be sure to note the editor has fallen into the trap of our bewildering coverage of Hagen), but I'm not sure there shouldn't be mention of some of it somewhere in the article. The IP previously posted to the talk page: "Why are all these articles Norse-Centric? When the Norse are the least of them?" Looking at that, I was also struck by other concerns raised on the talk page, particularly about our use of a citation to Anatoliy Liberman, none of which had received a response. So I think the article merits a look to see whether its coverage of varying theories (if only "bare" vs. "bear") and its range are adequate based on available sources. (I notice that Simek is solidly on the side of "bear" and masked warrior cults in his handbook, Lindow less so in his but still paying almost no attention to "bare", but a lot of work derived from Höfler has been called into question, and since we are citing Liberman we should represent his view adequately. I think the article should remain Norse-centric, though, and there may be OR in the IP's parallels; but OTOH they may feature prominently in the foundational German-language work on berserkir and ulfheðnar, in which case we should mention them in that context at least. (So there are my tentative views.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I haven’t looked at the citations, but I suspect most of the stuff he added from MHG epic is at best synth and at worst OR. I’m not sure Walter of Aquitaine growling (where? When?) makes him comparable to a berserk without secondary lit.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I should add: I'm mildly suspicious that this IP may be a proxy (he geolocates to... the Philippines) of Tympanus who was banned for trying to push what I would term a "Dietrich-von-Bern-Truther” sort of conspiracy, especially at Dietrich von Bern and Thidreks saga. The IP's edits track with that, even if he hasn't touched Tympanus's main concerns, but see for instance this draft on a figure I've never even heard of: [1]. The name appears to be 19th reconstruction by Grimm of a figure called Viliver in the Thidreks saga who is possibly connected to a bear named Wisselau in a text called "Van den bere Wisselau" that is either in Dutch or Low German, and completely unconnected to the Dietrich material. My suspicion is that if I were to look into work of Badenhausen (the fringe figure that Tympanus was pushing and may be identical to), I would find out that Wildeber is an important figure there. Also Tympanus has been trying to encourage others to make edits on his talk page for a little while now (see [2], [3], [4]. He's clearly desperate to edit and the last time he tried just as his own IP he got caught right away.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are more familiar with him than I am, so I suggest you report him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.--Berig (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- He is indeed using a website connected to the discredited theories of Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg, the patron saint of the movement pushed by Tympanus. I wonder though: are his PAs at Krakkos and Bloodofox’s talk pages, and now at the talk page for his draft of Wildeber as well as here, enough to warrant some sort of block?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- (Risking one more edit this month, hoping I don't have any deleted; after the new month starts in UTC I'll do some reverting and improving if I have time.) I see Tympanus was indeffed by Drmies. I'm always reluctant to advocate indeffing subject-matter experts, and he's right to note on his talk page that there are academics we should have articles on, many with articles on other Wikipedias (I just ran into no:Just Bing last night). However, the IP editor has indeed left nasty messages not only here but on Bloodofox's and Krakkos's talk pages, despite being informed about personal attacks as well as about OR (links for the anon's benefit). Block evasion is also sufficient grounds for indef-blocking, once abuse brings it to light, and although checkuser is not going to publicly link an IP to an account, and therefore I don't think SPI would be useful, I'd like to point to the previous message at Talk:Berserker also mentioning Wildeber, from 120.29.110.105. That IP also edited Reinhold, like the current one, and was blocked in January by Mz7 for personal attacks and as a sock of Walther Faunus. Walther Faunus was originally blocked last December by 331dot as a sock of 120.29.108.137 (later modified by Primefac), and his style of invective is lower and less fluent in English, but the "Wiki Gangs" header on User talk:120.29.108.137 is the same terminology we are currently seeing. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- He is indeed using a website connected to the discredited theories of Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg, the patron saint of the movement pushed by Tympanus. I wonder though: are his PAs at Krakkos and Bloodofox’s talk pages, and now at the talk page for his draft of Wildeber as well as here, enough to warrant some sort of block?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are more familiar with him than I am, so I suggest you report him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.--Berig (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Yngvadottir; I hope this finds you well. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time with this complicated message, which traces at least two stories the plot of which I am not familiar with. I think I know you don't like indef-blocking editors, but I'm glad you found some redeeming qualities in my indef-block of Tympanus, whose talk page access I just revoked. I think the question or suggestion here is that those 120 IPs are socks of Tympanus? They are not: Tympanus is out there in ... well, in a very different part of the world, and there's nothing that I can see that would confirm they're the same person working the proxy-line. Anyway, I blocked the IP range for a bit; it's not the first time, and I hope you don't think that too drastic a measure. I'm sorry y'all are having to suffer yet another internet harasser; please feel free to call on me if blocks, semi-protection, or...well that's all the tools I have. All the best, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drmies. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to file an SPI concerning the two named editors, but Ermenrich has already suggested the possibility they're using a proxy. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and I didn't see evidence of proxying. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drmies!--Berig (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and I didn't see evidence of proxying. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
And now for something completely different
edit
(I've requested rotation of the second one.) It's at Lövåsen, Tanum, which is on Google maps and there is actually an image of it linked there. This slightly different painting of the drawing is how it appears in P.V. Glob, The Mound People, Fig. 55, p. 141. The image in Jan de Vries, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, 2nd/3rd ed., Volume 2, p. 125, Fig. 20, far right (with much thicker horns, a thicker penis, and blocky rather than curved hammer heads) corresponds to that in Terry Gunnell, The Origins of Drama in Scandinavia, Fig. 15, p. 42, where it is attributed to Gelling and Davidson, The Chariot of the Sun (which I've failed to find after tossing the house today). The RAÄ have a pdf of a report with photo linked at the bottom of this page. Discussion I've seen so far is in the context of cultic cattle masks; the thinner-lined version includes the rear appendage in a form that is readily interpretable as a tail. </geek> Yngvadottir (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing me this striking petroglyph, Yngvadottir. They remind me of the more modern concept of the goat-headed horned god.--Berig (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
New editor
editDo you have any opinion on HernánCortés1518? I noticed him because of this edit to Talk:Grimm's law and I see you've encountered him elsewhere. He looks like he may have some WP:CIR issues, with English among other things, in addition to POV pushing.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I do have strong opinions about his activities.--Berig (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I just noticed how bad this edit is. I've warned them and I will take them to ANI if it continues (or the edit warring notice board, they're on thin ice on that count as well).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that it may be perceived as a "content dispute", where it is hard to prove WP:CIR.--Berig (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- I just noticed how bad this edit is. I've warned them and I will take them to ANI if it continues (or the edit warring notice board, they're on thin ice on that count as well).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think changing sources to say the opposite of what they say is pretty clear.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Half the time I check sources, they actually say the opposite of what they are supposed to say, but you have my support.--Berig (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll hold off for now to see how he continues to behave.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Half the time I check sources, they actually say the opposite of what they are supposed to say, but you have my support.--Berig (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think changing sources to say the opposite of what they say is pretty clear.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't see any discussion there at the moment.--Berig (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- He restarted it again. I am not so used with the meta on enwp, but diffs showing there are a consensus for removing the npov might be good to add to show you have a huge support. Sorry for this. Br Adville (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support :-)--Berig (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- This guy looks like a good case for ANI to me. The amount of text at Vikings (much of it apparently in response to himself?) is quite disruptive and beyond wp:IDONTHEARYOU.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He received a 3-year block on Swedish Wikipedia a few days ago so he is focusing on English Wikipedia now.--Berig (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He appears to be casting aspersions about you abusing your admin functions at various places around the encyclopedia now. I'm always sort of amazed when users with problematic behaviors are completely unaware that their behavior is problematic. Definitely trying to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about Vikings. I'd take him to ANI myself, but I'm not directly involved and that place is never pleasant.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am not seeking drama here. I'd rather try to finish the lists we are working on.--Berig (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He appears to be casting aspersions about you abusing your admin functions at various places around the encyclopedia now. I'm always sort of amazed when users with problematic behaviors are completely unaware that their behavior is problematic. Definitely trying to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about Vikings. I'd take him to ANI myself, but I'm not directly involved and that place is never pleasant.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He received a 3-year block on Swedish Wikipedia a few days ago so he is focusing on English Wikipedia now.--Berig (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- This guy looks like a good case for ANI to me. The amount of text at Vikings (much of it apparently in response to himself?) is quite disruptive and beyond wp:IDONTHEARYOU.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support :-)--Berig (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He restarted it again. I am not so used with the meta on enwp, but diffs showing there are a consensus for removing the npov might be good to add to show you have a huge support. Sorry for this. Br Adville (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI: [5].--Ermenrich (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good call!--Berig (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
How do the linguists spell this?
editWriting a response at Talk:Heimdallr (thank you for the compliment, by the way), I found we spell the deceased gentleman's name Geirröðr, but I've got used to seeing Geirrøðr (I've just made a redirect). I know there is some more or less arcane distinction between the two vowels; how far is it a settled matter that his name takes ø in Old Norse? I've just drawn an absolute blank on Icelandic Wikipedia, where I thought I might at least find a quotation (they apparently don't even have mention of Eilífr Goðrúnarson; I searched with and without the u). Is this something like ô vs ǫ́, differing typographic conventions, or should the article be moved? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: There was variation of course. Actually, not many people are aware today that before the 20th c. there was no fixed spelling for names in the Western World, something that troubles genealogists. Geirrøðr/Geirreðr consists of geirr ("spear") + friðr ("peace and love"). The last element friðr could also turn into -ruðr (from þrúðr, "strength"), so that is why we also find Geirruðr. We also have the form Geirrauðr, where the last element looks like -rauðr ("red"). Since -(f)riðr, -(f)reðr, -(f)røðr and -ruðr appear as variants, and can get mixed up with -rauðr, it is not surprising if it can also be spelled as -(f)rǫðr (i.e. (f)röðr), which in later Old Norse (and in modern Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish) was pronounced the same way as the spelling (f)røðr. To add to the mess, a spelling -(f)rauðr could have been an alternative way of writing -(f)rǫðr (cf. Danmǫrk which is spelled tanmaurk on one of the Jelling stones), because a ligature of a and u existed as an alternative for ǫ. It is the same mess with the name Sigrǫðr/Sigrøðr/Sigruðr/Sigrauðr, which is the same name as Sigfried. If there is a "correct" form of the name it is Geirfríðr ("spear peace, spear love").--Berig (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- PS, ö, ô and ǫ are just three ways of writing the same letter in ON.--Berig (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. I thought ô (which to me looks like a MHG long o) was being used for long ǫ (ǫ́) because the latter doesn't render for many people? (I finally tracked one down to copy and paste). I hadn't known what the 2nd element in the jǫtunn's name was; I see what you mean about it could be construed as different words, and I've seen the au spelling. But his name seems to be consistently spelled with ø by the modern English-language scholars I'm using; isn't there something involved about different sources of the umlauted vowel? Ah well, I guess I'll leave the article alone then :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- PS, ö, ô and ǫ are just three ways of writing the same letter in ON.--Berig (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yngvadottir, you’re right, two vowels have fallen together, have a look at Old Norse#phonology. The two have actually developed differently in the continental Scandinavian languages than Icelandic and Faroese.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, in early ON, ǫ was pronounced o, and a variant pronunciation (allophone) of a in certain contexts. Later in ON, it was pronounced in the same way as ø.--Berig (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yngvadottir, you’re right, two vowels have fallen together, have a look at Old Norse#phonology. The two have actually developed differently in the continental Scandinavian languages than Icelandic and Faroese.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Arbitration
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
Modern Icelandic for Norse mythology articles
editI noticed you reverted the Modern Icelandic pronunciation I added to Andvaranaut. You made the point that the other descendants of Old Norse (the modern North Germanic languages) are not also listed. Point conceded, except that Modern Icelandic forms and pronunciations are still appropriate to include in Norse mythology articles relying mainly on works codified in Iceland, such as the writings of Snorri Sturluson. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure about that, because the works weren't written in Modern Icelandic. Modern Icelandic is an anachronism in the context, and rather irrelevant. BTW, not even Snorri Sturluson thought he was writing in an "Icelandic language", because he believed he was writing in "Danish".--Berig (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm...I do recall reading that "Danish" was a general nomenclature for all of Norse for a certain time. In any event, I know there wasn't an idea of a distinct "Icelandic language" at the time—they spoke Old West Norse, as also in the Faroes, Shetland, Orkney and mainland Norway. But nevertheless, the compilations came from Iceland, correct? Even if notionally they were a version of broader Norse mythology, as I understand it (and please correct me if I am at all mistaken), it was through an Icelandic literary lens that these canonical versions were compiled and later reintroduced to mainland Scandinavia. They may be Norse mythology, but in a narrower sense, they are Icelandic literature, and part of the closely-held indigenous cultural heritage of Iceland in a way that is not quite as direct where Denmark, Sweden, etc. are concerned. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly there is a need for the modern Icelandic nation to re-appropriate their heritage on WP, and you do so by adding pronunciations that are 700-800 years later than those that resulted in the spelling of the names.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose there's less certainty about this than before we had this discussion. All right, perhaps there needs to be more modern cultural relevance than geography.
- But I went this route because it has been my understanding that the modern Icelandic connection to their medieval literature is more intimate than in other modern Nordic cultures, owing largely to Iceland's unique linguistic circumstances. Whereas languages in Scandinavia proper mutated more drastically over the centuries, with significant changes in morphology and orthography, Icelandic morphology has changed extremely little since the settlement of Iceland, and Icelanders can still easily read Old Norse literature untranslated, and when read aloud they use modern pronunciation. Spelling differences between Old Norse and Modern Icelandic are slight. And combined with the fact that this literature was also compiled in Iceland by people from Iceland, it only seems natural to include a modern Icelandic form. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been to Iceland, so I can't compare mainland Scandinavians and Icelanders. However, if you live in mainland Scandinavia, it is not literature in book shelves that remind people of Norse mythology, but place names (have a look at a map of mainland Scandinavia and you may see names of Norse gods across the map), the weeks of the day, common personal names (Tor, Torbjörn, Gudrun). What people understand as a "Norwegian", "Swedish" or "Danish" name is effect a name from Old Norse and most people know that. Everybody, in mainland Scandinavia has learnt about Norse myths in school, so I doubt they feel less connected than Icelanders. However, the connection between a modern country and the old myths is not important here. It is how relevant the pronunciation of modern Icelandic is to an English language speaker who is mainly interested in "how the Vikings said it".--Berig (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually from Micronesia. I'm just a well-educated heavy reader of a wide variety of academic topics. But your point is noted—I may have acted naïvely. I won't object to you removing modern Icelandic pronunciations from various Norse mythological topics. But I take it they're still relevant to sagas of Icelanders topics, correct? - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see any problem if you give the Icelandic pronunciation in paragraphs where there is more in-depth treatment of Icelandic names, but as you may have noted I only removed the Icelandic pronunciation once. Personally, I only find the Icelandic pronunciation interesting, because it has changed so much. Swedish and "New" Norwegian are much closer to how Old Norse was pronounced.--Berig (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I thought you'd removed it twice. Sorry. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds about the addition of Icelandic pronunciations because I originally studied Old Norse at Oxford, where Icelandic rather than reconstructed pronunciation has traditionally been used; I believe the reasoning was that since a modern language with very few changes existed, it made more sense to teach students to use that language's pronunciation. I don't know whether there are other institutions with the same policy, or even whether that's changed at Oxford since my time. But there are or were surprising regional differences in Icelandic pronunciation for such a small country, and in addition when I saw these pronunciations being added, they seemed surprisingly precise. I am not a linguist, although I can read basic IPA, and I have been puzzled before by Wikipedia's IPA policy—we appear to mark /r/ in British words as if it is pronounced—but I thought overall policy was to provide a fairly broad descriptive transcription? It may just be me; some languages commonly require IPA symbols that are fairly unusual elsewhere :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if only the modern Icelandic pronunciation had been given, I may not have reacted, but as an ON pronunciation was already given it seemed anachronistic. As for the IPA, there is the phonetic transcription within brackets [...] which strives to be precise and the phonemic within slashes /.../ that is more generic. I believe the choice depends on the contributor and the felt need for precision. Some languages may also have unusual pronuciations. However, IMHO, for British pronunciation, the /r/ should not be indicated unless before a vowel or showing local pronunciation. British, or at least English English has a standard pronunciation.--Berig (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was the non-rhotic thing where I tangled with the linguists. I know we're doing phonetic, but there are a lot of glide and stress features where it's a matter of judgement, as I understand it ... but probably my ignorance more than anything else :-) I do agree we need reconstructed Old Norse pronunciation first and foremost. I can't name any other institution that teaches the Icelandic pronunciation by preference, although it's served me well (including in enabling me to make people fall about laughing, rather than give me blank stares, when I was in Iceland). And I'm old enough that even Oxford may haave since changed to reconstructed. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Icelandic pronunciations could be put back, in proper context. Whether it's part of a paragraph, or whatever appropriate circumstances. I can't say what those circumstances would be, but it's doable. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are still articles relating to modern Iceland, and more recent Icelandic matters that lake pronunciations, such as Northeast (Icelandic constituency).--Berig (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just added pronunciations to the various constituency articles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Gilgamesh:, thank you for adding ON pronunciations to articles! I appreciate it a lot.--Berig (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just added pronunciations to the various constituency articles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are still articles relating to modern Iceland, and more recent Icelandic matters that lake pronunciations, such as Northeast (Icelandic constituency).--Berig (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Icelandic pronunciations could be put back, in proper context. Whether it's part of a paragraph, or whatever appropriate circumstances. I can't say what those circumstances would be, but it's doable. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was the non-rhotic thing where I tangled with the linguists. I know we're doing phonetic, but there are a lot of glide and stress features where it's a matter of judgement, as I understand it ... but probably my ignorance more than anything else :-) I do agree we need reconstructed Old Norse pronunciation first and foremost. I can't name any other institution that teaches the Icelandic pronunciation by preference, although it's served me well (including in enabling me to make people fall about laughing, rather than give me blank stares, when I was in Iceland). And I'm old enough that even Oxford may haave since changed to reconstructed. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if only the modern Icelandic pronunciation had been given, I may not have reacted, but as an ON pronunciation was already given it seemed anachronistic. As for the IPA, there is the phonetic transcription within brackets [...] which strives to be precise and the phonemic within slashes /.../ that is more generic. I believe the choice depends on the contributor and the felt need for precision. Some languages may also have unusual pronuciations. However, IMHO, for British pronunciation, the /r/ should not be indicated unless before a vowel or showing local pronunciation. British, or at least English English has a standard pronunciation.--Berig (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see any problem if you give the Icelandic pronunciation in paragraphs where there is more in-depth treatment of Icelandic names, but as you may have noted I only removed the Icelandic pronunciation once. Personally, I only find the Icelandic pronunciation interesting, because it has changed so much. Swedish and "New" Norwegian are much closer to how Old Norse was pronounced.--Berig (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually from Micronesia. I'm just a well-educated heavy reader of a wide variety of academic topics. But your point is noted—I may have acted naïvely. I won't object to you removing modern Icelandic pronunciations from various Norse mythological topics. But I take it they're still relevant to sagas of Icelanders topics, correct? - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been to Iceland, so I can't compare mainland Scandinavians and Icelanders. However, if you live in mainland Scandinavia, it is not literature in book shelves that remind people of Norse mythology, but place names (have a look at a map of mainland Scandinavia and you may see names of Norse gods across the map), the weeks of the day, common personal names (Tor, Torbjörn, Gudrun). What people understand as a "Norwegian", "Swedish" or "Danish" name is effect a name from Old Norse and most people know that. Everybody, in mainland Scandinavia has learnt about Norse myths in school, so I doubt they feel less connected than Icelanders. However, the connection between a modern country and the old myths is not important here. It is how relevant the pronunciation of modern Icelandic is to an English language speaker who is mainly interested in "how the Vikings said it".--Berig (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly there is a need for the modern Icelandic nation to re-appropriate their heritage on WP, and you do so by adding pronunciations that are 700-800 years later than those that resulted in the spelling of the names.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm...I do recall reading that "Danish" was a general nomenclature for all of Norse for a certain time. In any event, I know there wasn't an idea of a distinct "Icelandic language" at the time—they spoke Old West Norse, as also in the Faroes, Shetland, Orkney and mainland Norway. But nevertheless, the compilations came from Iceland, correct? Even if notionally they were a version of broader Norse mythology, as I understand it (and please correct me if I am at all mistaken), it was through an Icelandic literary lens that these canonical versions were compiled and later reintroduced to mainland Scandinavia. They may be Norse mythology, but in a narrower sense, they are Icelandic literature, and part of the closely-held indigenous cultural heritage of Iceland in a way that is not quite as direct where Denmark, Sweden, etc. are concerned. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Berig: You're welcome. I must admit that there's a margin of error in the pronunciations I give, though. I think they are mostly correct (at least to the First Grammatical Treatise), but there are some micro-guesses involved. For instance:
- As long as you know the morpheme boundaries, it's not difficult to tell which a/i/u vowels are stressed (and thus [ɑ, i, u]) or unstressed (and thus [ɑ, e, o]). This distinction became meaningless not long after in the middle of the 12th century when both distinctions merged into [ä, ɪ, ʊ]—the a/i/u spelling is from the much more recent Standard Normalization of Old Norse which spells words to reflect how the unstressed short vowels were pronounced after the merger. This is why I indicated certain ing as [eŋɡ] and certain ung as [oŋɡ], etc.
- Indicating g as [ɡ] vs. [ɣ] allophones is also something of a guess. I always indicate it [ɡ] at the beginning of a morpheme or when doubled or after n, l or r—I'm not certain how wise this is. To some degree I'm taking cues from Icelandic, but I also indicate non-initial gl and gn as [ɣl, ɣn], just as I indicate non-initial fl and fn as Old Norse pronunciation: [vl, vn], because the fortition of these consonants in Icelandic didn't happen across the rest of the North Germanic languages.
- I'm generally assuming h is [h] just about everywhere it occurs, even in hl, hn and hr as [hl, hn, hr], and I'm making no assumptions they were already coalesced in the 12th century as [l̥, n̥, r̥]. They genuinely may have been, but that feels like unverified original research. The only exception is that I indicate hv as [xw], to reflect its lasting strong frication and later occasional fortition to kv in North Germanic languages. This may be naive. It could be [hw], or [ʍ]. But [xw] seems like "no harm done".
- Certain instances of r as [z̠], which as we already know we can't be more specific about (it could have been [ʒ, ʑ, ʐ], etc.). This is a bit of a tough one. I realize it was probably already [r] in Iceland in Snorri Sturluson's time, but indicating it as distinct where we know it was in at least part of the Norse-speaking world, seems wise. The other problem is knowing which r is actually [z̠], since the references and provided Old Norse spellings generally use only unmarked r spellings. My entirely improvised rule of thumb is, if the r comes immediately after a consonant at the end of a morpheme, or if the r is part of a case ending that disappears in other cases, or if it had been z in Proto-Norse or Proto-Germanic, then it's probably safe to indicate it as [z̠]. Again, I don't know how wise this is. It's entirely possible a lot of my IPA pronunciations may require correction.
- I make no assumptions about devoicing, aspiration or palatalization of consonants, so I indicate t as [t], tt as [tː], kj as [kj], etc.
- I follow orthographical patterns where available. For special reasons, the diphthongs ei, ey and au are [ɛi, œy, ɔu]. But I don't indicate nasalization if not indicated in the spelling. And I realize that a lot of these spellings, just like the unstressed a/i/u, could reflect a phase after some of the mergers (and complete loss of phonemic nasalization) following the First Grammatical Treatise, and that, for example, some instances of later 12th century á [ɑː] are actually merged from FGT-era ȧ́ [ɑ̃ː], ǫ́ [ɔː] or ǫ̇́ [ɔ̃ː], in which case that á is probably actually post-merger [ɒː]; compare FGT-style Vǫluspǫ́ [ˈwɔloˌspɔː] vs. late 12th century Old Icelandic Völuspá [ˈwɵ̞lʊˌspɒː]. Still, I indicate á as [ɑː] unless I have more information.
- Sometimes, if a Norse spelling just doesn't seem specific enough, like if it only uses ö instead of ǫ or ø and I can't find a more specific reference (or if it can never be more specific because it's from after the late 12th century), I decide not to enter an IPA pronunciation at all, since I don't want to accept such a margin of error that the pronunciation I enter ends up being outright poorly-guessed misinformation.
- I've been working on User:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Evolution of Icelandic vowels (still unfinished and being polished) to help me in this, and hopefully to help improve articles on the wiki later on, as long as I can adequately match the table data with the references.
- Gilgamesh (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the pronunciations are great, and it strikes me how conservative the pronunciations of Norwegian and Swedish have been. However, are there references you could provide? Sooner or later you'll see an editor (usually a new account) adding a "ref needed" tag after them. I won't, because I can see that they are realistic and written by someone who knows what they are doing.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not many explicit references per se, no. Such a reference would need to document the words phonologically and break them up into morphemes. Some articles have etymology sections that do this at least to some degree, but in many cases I'm haphazardly consulting dictionaries, usually Wiktionary. But once the morphemes and phonemes are known, IPA transcription becomes relatively trivial and methodical. The Old Norse article has a phonology section, and I've found those external references on the history of Icelandic vowels back to the time of the First Grammatical Treatise.
- And again, it doesn't necessarily help that some of the most important corpuses of Old Norse texts were compiled in the later Old West Norse period in Iceland, and the primary reference for my Icelandic vowels chart (linked from my user page project page) describes a chain-shift of almost all the vowels before the 12th century was even over. So the consideration becomes, do we use reconstructed IPA from the early 12th century (First Grammatical Treatise), the mid 12th century (the beginning of the major vowel chain shift and the complete loss of nasalized vowels), the late 12th century (the ǫ–ø merger and resulting phonemicization of palatal stop consonants), or the 13th century (the elongation of vowels before ng/nk and the æ–œ merger), etc.? Do we maintain up to three or four different IPA transcription systems even just for Old West Norse depending on the decade and generation of authors? For the word ørǿfi/ørœfi (desert/wilderness), the progression goes early 12th [ˈørˌøːve], mid 12th [ˈø̞rˌø̞ːvɪ], late 12th örœfi [ˈɵ̞rˌœːvɪ], 13th öræfi [ˈɵ̞rˌæːvɪ] (Modern Icelandic [ˈɵɞːrˌaiːvɪ]). I stick largely just to the First Grammatical Treatise phonology of the early 12th century because it's extremely well-documented and relatively uncomplicated to transcribe.
- And yes, it does seem like Swedish and Norwegian are among the most phonologically conservative of the modern North Germanic languages. But the drastic simplification of case endings means they are far from grammatically conservative—that distinction seems to go to Icelandic, which preserved most of its grammatical sophistication by retaining most of its stressed and unstressed vowel distinctions even as the vowels themselves shifted more drastically. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I know Swedes who have studied Icelandic and say that it is great for understanding how Swedish works. Swedish is more conservative than Danish and Norwegian, and contains a lot of oddities, fixed expressions and irregularities that are fossilized parts of Old Norse grammar. They make sense, though, when compared to Icelandic grammar. They are still there, but have lost the motivation that they once had.--Berig (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the pronunciations are great, and it strikes me how conservative the pronunciations of Norwegian and Swedish have been. However, are there references you could provide? Sooner or later you'll see an editor (usually a new account) adding a "ref needed" tag after them. I won't, because I can see that they are realistic and written by someone who knows what they are doing.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
IP at Ostrogoths
edit69.47.30.96 is busily removing every mention of the word "Germanic" over at Visigoths...--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have warned him.--Berig (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- He's still at it at Ostrogoths (main focus of the vandalism), including adding false info such as that the root *auster- is Latin...--Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- He has stopped for now. Interesting edit history...--Berig (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ermenrich:, I can't properly block him without several warnings first. If he starts again, he may receive a temporary block.--Berig (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- He has stopped for now. Interesting edit history...--Berig (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- He's still at it at Ostrogoths (main focus of the vandalism), including adding false info such as that the root *auster- is Latin...--Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Recommendation of source for article on Germanic figures
editHello, Berig. I saw that a group of wiki editors are working on a collection of articles about personages of Germanic history and legend. May I present another source, by Lotte Motz, which, to my mind, may increment your efforts?189.122.57.144 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Motz, Lotte. "New Thoughts on Dwarf-Names in Old Icelandic". In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 7, no. 1 (1973): 100-117. https://doi.org/10.1515/fmst-1973-0107
- Oh, thank you! :).--Berig (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Space
editHello. [6] I do not want to revert your edit because of a newline. The newline is not a mistake, see WP:REDCAT and MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text. Christian75 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK thanks. I have added one now.--Berig (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Its not a big deal - It's more because of next time.... But thanks :-) Christian75 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hurray!
editGreat work finally getting the lists moved to main space! As you might have noticed I've been a bit distracted by Germanic peoples lately, and I'm also working on some non-Wiki projects of my own, so sorry about leaving you alone there at the end. I think there are still some places, especially from the Thidreks saga (and maybe also important rivers of legend?) that should be added to that article and I'll try to get around to it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I understand. This my last day of vacation, so I want to get this off my mind.--Berig (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think you accidentally deleted the list for D-E?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- And H-He now...--Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have to go and do other things now, but I will return in an hour or so. I will leave a message later on the talkpage for other editors who might be interested.--Berig (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
List of figures in Germanic heroic legend
editJust removed a bunch of URLs that go by the names temporary, or single use, or AWS. See WP:AWSURL -- GreenC 15:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks!--Berig (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Dnieper
editHi Berig,
Do you think it might be possible to semi-protect Dnieper? The article is constantly being edited by IPs and accounts without any other edits who change the name to Dnipro (even though Dnieper is not the Russian name and the river begins in Russia and flows through Belarus, this seems to be a big thing among Ukrainian nationalists...). Putting semi-protection on it would put a stop to most of that.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected it now.--Berig (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks you!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I just noticed that the only Old Norse name we have on the list of figures beginning with Ulf- is a translation of German Wolfhart. Odd that there are wolf- names in MHG and OE but not ON, don't you think?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- True. I believe ulfr was more common as a second element in Scandinavia.--Berig (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
"Finn"
editHi Berig,
So, is the word "Finn" originally a Germanic name for the Sami, or did it always mean Finnic in the broad sense and in the context of Norway applied specifically to the local Finns (the Sami)? I'm wondering if "Finnic" in the broad sense includes the Sami because that was the original meaning, or if the Sami just got swept up with the rest under a generic term. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Originally, it just meant "hunter-gatherer" and it is derived from Proto-Germanic *fenþanan, which is modern word to "find", i.e. people who find their food in the forest. It was not applied to any specific ethnicity originally and so it also gave its name to Finnveden and probably its people in south-western Sweden, where there likely never were any Finno-Ugric peoples. It is also possible that it was applied to pre-Finno-Ugric peoples in inner northern Scandinavia before the arrival of the Saami sometime during the 1st millenium AD. The reason why it was applied to Finland is because most of modern Finland used to be settled by hunting and gathering Saami. Note that reindeer herding is a rather recent phenomenon. Before herding reindeer they were hunters and gatherers. The reason why I preferred linking it to Finno-Ugric is because when Swedish matters are concerned the Finnar are often associated with Finland, while when Norwegian matters are concerned they are always associated with the Saami.--Berig (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Finno-Ugric languages doesn't explain any of that. I just linked to the Finnic peoples dab page, where I added a note to the bullet point for Saami. It might be that that article should be expanded to more than just a dab page. It used to be more, though that was deleted by a Finnish user who said there is no such thing.
- Actually, the last entry on the talk page suggested restoring the article, which I'll probably do now.
- If you're interested, Kven people#Name could probably use your attention, since until I added something (perhaps not accurate) today, it didn't give any idea why calling the Kven 'Finns' in Norway might be inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, do you have a source for the term "Finn" being applied to Finland because it was Sami at the time? That's the kind of claim that might spark a POV battle. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are you going to write about it? There a two theories that I know of 1) that Finland was named after a toponymic feature, "fens", IIRC, and 2) that it was named after hunter-gatherers which would have been Saami. The last theory agrees with other uses of Finn in ON.--Berig (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I mentioned it at Finnic peoples. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- What you have written is perfectly mainstream, imo.--Berig (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I hope so. But there are editors who deny that the Volga Finns are Finnic peoples, or that there even are Finnic peoples. It would be good to have a ref for any claim about an ethnonym. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, everything related to ethnicity is a bit toxic. There is a similar discussion on the talkpage of Germanic peoples, where there is an editor who argues against the idea that the Germanic peoples ever existed. I am bit busy IRL, ATM, but I googled a little and found the following articles that may be interesting: [7], [8]. When I come home, I will have more time to dig through some sources.--Berig (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami:, I have been thinking a bit about this. What about simply stating that finnaz is derived from a word for "hunter-gatherer" and that ON sources refer to Finnic-speaking groups in Fenno-Scandia? The ethnonyms Finns and Saamis are after all modern constructions.--Berig (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Nat Com ref is nice.
- I am trying to specify the Sami, because they are least often called Finns. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I hope so. But there are editors who deny that the Volga Finns are Finnic peoples, or that there even are Finnic peoples. It would be good to have a ref for any claim about an ethnonym. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- What you have written is perfectly mainstream, imo.--Berig (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I mentioned it at Finnic peoples. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Something completely different
edit
I have been trying to track down a reference in Sigmund Oehrl, Zur Deutung anthropomorpher und theriomorpher Bilddarstellungen auf den spätwikingerzeitlichen Runensteinen Schwedens, Wiener Studien zur Skandinavistik 16, Vienna: Praesens, 2006, which I cannot see, to there being three images on artifacts that have been related by some scholars to Thor's fishing expedition for the World Serpent. Oehrl reportedly dismissed all three. One is the Överjärna runestone or Linga stone, Sö 352; we have a good drawing on Commons so here's that, and I've found other references, including in Oehrl, Vierbeinerdarstellungen auf schwedischen Runensteinen: Studien zur nordgermanischen Tier- und Fesselungsikonographie. That also covers the second, an 8th-century bronze horse mount from Solberga, which we don't have on Commons and which appears to show a mermaid, although it was supposedly championed as Thor's fishing expedition by David M. Wilson, I think in Vikingatidens konst (Google Books keeps refusing to show me the bibliographies of books that reference "Wilson 1995"; I hope I've correctly identified it; it will be on p. 139). The last of the three is a D-bracteate, which I gather means simply that it's a bracteate with an animal on it, and I am at wit's end. All I can find is Karl Hauck's late articles on bracteates from Söderby, and related discussions of the Ourobouros motif. Söderby-B is analysed as depicting Ragnarǫk (or maybe that should be Ragnarøk), with figures of Thor and Týr and their respective slayers discerned in the margin, and I imagine those bracteates are at the museum in Stockholm, so I wonder whether you or a talk page watcher can put your finger on what bracteate has been said by one or more scholars to depict Thor fishing for the World Serpent? Ragnarǫk is obviously of interest when considering the World Serpent, but isn't the same thing. Puzzled (and also wishing folks would say more clearly what the dates of these bracteates are thought to be, the Migration Age lasted quite a while). Yngvadottir (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it is this one where there is a man struggling with a serpent.--Berig (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! That's the report on Söderby-B that kept coming up on search, and the forthcoming article by Hauck is therefore probably "Balder und Týr 'der einhändige Ase', auf IK 583 Söderby-B", Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2001. I can now see the coloured analysis of the figures, which Google Books showed me on the first pass in Hauck's subsequent "Zwei Goldbrakteaten von dem Söderby-Fund aus der Kultregion von Altuppsala. Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, LX", in the Anders Hultgård festschrift (2001, and I have other articles to track down in that). If it is that one, I can see no way the central image features the fishing expedition, but now that I have the article, I'll see if I can find any claim in it that it might be. What do you think of the rune stone? Given that there are crosses on both sides, an elaborate one on the heavily damaged other side, and the absence of a figure in the boat, I'm more inclined to see Jesus fishing for the Devil with his human soul as bait. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the Christian interpretations are usually a bit extreme. The new "Christians" of the 11th c. must still have been rather ignorant of Christian myths, but were still conditioned by Norse paganism: Jesus was a mightly warlord, they were still animistic seeing nature as full of spirits (these spirits survived until modern days as elves, trolls, wights, tomtes, etc.) and they were still so well versed in Norse myths that our main sources for Norse myths were written down two centuries later. In Sweden, Norse pagan elements are still found in 12 or 13th c. graves, and in the 13th c. the Swedes could still attribute a victory over the Danes to Odin. The people who made the stone were syncretic rather than Christian in a modern sense. Also, I see horns on the bait, and besides the cross the only thing that appears to be a concession to Christianity is that they left Thor out of the boat. The bait supports the idea that the runic serpent is Jörmungand, imho.--Berig (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's usually my line, that the Christian explanations tend to be overblown :-) In this instance, though, I hesitate to argue for an invisible Thor (although I see there is an invisible Sigurðr on another monument, and we do know that the fishing expedition and the slaying of Fáfnir were very popular subjects of carvings after the conversion). I am of course taking Jesus fishing for the Devil from Dronke; I have no idea how popular it was or is as a Christian theme. But it seems to me that an invisible fisherman using a head-like bait is one way to depict that. The way the object hangs is clearly schematic like its detailing; it doesn't hang like either an anchor or an ox-head with an anchor in it as a hook, maybe it's a drag anchor :-) I also find the difference in the styles of the crosses on the front and back strange, but maybe that's because the back one is used for the end of the inscription. It would be exciting if all the rune-serpents were representations of the World Serpent (except the one that's Fáfnir)! Tonight I will search again for what bracteate and whose argument Oehrl was on about. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- That article from Dronke really is something, lol. In fact, I'd say the essays in both volume II but especially volume III are extremely dubious, and they seem to have been received pretty negatively. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The apex of "everything is based on Christianity", at least so far; the Leviathan parts of it still seem to be widely accepted, because syncretism and the role of the Hlaðir school are conceptualized differently by different scholars. And then there's the toxic masculinity theory. This is Wikipedia, so other than Dronke I am keeping names out of it. But I am going cross-eyed trying to force Google to either show me a useful reference to the bracteate claim or let me see a likely candidate via images. (The Hørdum Stone has given me enough eyestrain, trying to decipher bracteates ... I am almost desperate enough to try e-mailing Oehrl. Even pre-pandemic, I had poor academic library access; can either of you see Zur Deutung anthropomorpher und theriomorpher Bilddarstellungen auf den spätwikingerzeitlichen Runensteinen Schwedens, pp. 130–31, either digitally or in the flesh, and extract from it some identificatory number or find location for the mysterious bracteate? Ideally of course, I'd like to know the scholar(s) he named as having suggested it's the fishing expedition, and even more ideally, something more about which of their publications it was than a mysterious and possibly not even accurate year number for some reason Google Books habitually refuses to let me see end notes and bibliographies, what I would have considered the least proprietary parts of a scholarly book, and Wilson's book is one of many that are sometimes listed with a different publication year. I am a rather good searcher, like many Wikipedians, but this is approaching hacker levels of difficulty. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir:, I will have Zur Deutung anthropomorpher und theriomorpher Bilddarstellungen auf den spätwikingerzeitlichen Runensteinen Schwedens in my hands in a few days. It needs to be ordered from one of the filial libraries where I live.--Berig (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you :-) and sorry to bang on about this stuff. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir:, Oehrl refers to Hauck, Die Nordversion des Jonasmotivs — Hauck, KI.: Zur Ikonographie der Goldbrakteaten XIII: Schlüsselstücke zur Entzifferung der Ikonographie der D-Brakteaten: Die Nordversion des Jonasmotivs und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung. Studien zur Sachsenforschung I, 1977. This source has Ikonologie instead of Ikonographie the first time it appears in the title.--Berig (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I've started wrestling Google Books for that. I find a summary (Charlotte Behr, "Forschungsgeschichte", in Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit: Auswertung und Neufunde, 2011, pp. 224–25) according to which Hauck argued in that paper that "the D-bracteates", in depicting a leg and an ear in proximity with the mouth of a monster, were depicting the god being dismembered and swallowed "durch Midgard, die Weltschlange" and were to be classed with the apotropaic function of the C-bracteates, that is, as representations of the dismemberment and swallowing of the same god depicted fighting a monster on A-, B-, and C-bracteates, all of which he related to shamanism and to the cult of Óðinn. Hmm. Based on that summary, it wasn't one particular D-bracteate of unknown provenance, unless Oehrl singles out one in particular? This is the kind of thing I've dreaded since I started studying; things get published but are inaccessible to me and ignored by those scholars I find, and gulfs develop in the scholarship. Even with the internet, which has brought at least some of the Scandinavian and German publications within reach, who knows what else I'm missing ... Thanks again, and apologies again. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am only glad to help you.--Berig (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I've started wrestling Google Books for that. I find a summary (Charlotte Behr, "Forschungsgeschichte", in Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit: Auswertung und Neufunde, 2011, pp. 224–25) according to which Hauck argued in that paper that "the D-bracteates", in depicting a leg and an ear in proximity with the mouth of a monster, were depicting the god being dismembered and swallowed "durch Midgard, die Weltschlange" and were to be classed with the apotropaic function of the C-bracteates, that is, as representations of the dismemberment and swallowing of the same god depicted fighting a monster on A-, B-, and C-bracteates, all of which he related to shamanism and to the cult of Óðinn. Hmm. Based on that summary, it wasn't one particular D-bracteate of unknown provenance, unless Oehrl singles out one in particular? This is the kind of thing I've dreaded since I started studying; things get published but are inaccessible to me and ignored by those scholars I find, and gulfs develop in the scholarship. Even with the internet, which has brought at least some of the Scandinavian and German publications within reach, who knows what else I'm missing ... Thanks again, and apologies again. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir:, Oehrl refers to Hauck, Die Nordversion des Jonasmotivs — Hauck, KI.: Zur Ikonographie der Goldbrakteaten XIII: Schlüsselstücke zur Entzifferung der Ikonographie der D-Brakteaten: Die Nordversion des Jonasmotivs und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung. Studien zur Sachsenforschung I, 1977. This source has Ikonologie instead of Ikonographie the first time it appears in the title.--Berig (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you :-) and sorry to bang on about this stuff. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir:, I will have Zur Deutung anthropomorpher und theriomorpher Bilddarstellungen auf den spätwikingerzeitlichen Runensteinen Schwedens in my hands in a few days. It needs to be ordered from one of the filial libraries where I live.--Berig (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The apex of "everything is based on Christianity", at least so far; the Leviathan parts of it still seem to be widely accepted, because syncretism and the role of the Hlaðir school are conceptualized differently by different scholars. And then there's the toxic masculinity theory. This is Wikipedia, so other than Dronke I am keeping names out of it. But I am going cross-eyed trying to force Google to either show me a useful reference to the bracteate claim or let me see a likely candidate via images. (The Hørdum Stone has given me enough eyestrain, trying to decipher bracteates ... I am almost desperate enough to try e-mailing Oehrl. Even pre-pandemic, I had poor academic library access; can either of you see Zur Deutung anthropomorpher und theriomorpher Bilddarstellungen auf den spätwikingerzeitlichen Runensteinen Schwedens, pp. 130–31, either digitally or in the flesh, and extract from it some identificatory number or find location for the mysterious bracteate? Ideally of course, I'd like to know the scholar(s) he named as having suggested it's the fishing expedition, and even more ideally, something more about which of their publications it was than a mysterious and possibly not even accurate year number for some reason Google Books habitually refuses to let me see end notes and bibliographies, what I would have considered the least proprietary parts of a scholarly book, and Wilson's book is one of many that are sometimes listed with a different publication year. I am a rather good searcher, like many Wikipedians, but this is approaching hacker levels of difficulty. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That article from Dronke really is something, lol. In fact, I'd say the essays in both volume II but especially volume III are extremely dubious, and they seem to have been received pretty negatively. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's usually my line, that the Christian explanations tend to be overblown :-) In this instance, though, I hesitate to argue for an invisible Thor (although I see there is an invisible Sigurðr on another monument, and we do know that the fishing expedition and the slaying of Fáfnir were very popular subjects of carvings after the conversion). I am of course taking Jesus fishing for the Devil from Dronke; I have no idea how popular it was or is as a Christian theme. But it seems to me that an invisible fisherman using a head-like bait is one way to depict that. The way the object hangs is clearly schematic like its detailing; it doesn't hang like either an anchor or an ox-head with an anchor in it as a hook, maybe it's a drag anchor :-) I also find the difference in the styles of the crosses on the front and back strange, but maybe that's because the back one is used for the end of the inscription. It would be exciting if all the rune-serpents were representations of the World Serpent (except the one that's Fáfnir)! Tonight I will search again for what bracteate and whose argument Oehrl was on about. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the Christian interpretations are usually a bit extreme. The new "Christians" of the 11th c. must still have been rather ignorant of Christian myths, but were still conditioned by Norse paganism: Jesus was a mightly warlord, they were still animistic seeing nature as full of spirits (these spirits survived until modern days as elves, trolls, wights, tomtes, etc.) and they were still so well versed in Norse myths that our main sources for Norse myths were written down two centuries later. In Sweden, Norse pagan elements are still found in 12 or 13th c. graves, and in the 13th c. the Swedes could still attribute a victory over the Danes to Odin. The people who made the stone were syncretic rather than Christian in a modern sense. Also, I see horns on the bait, and besides the cross the only thing that appears to be a concession to Christianity is that they left Thor out of the boat. The bait supports the idea that the runic serpent is Jörmungand, imho.--Berig (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! That's the report on Söderby-B that kept coming up on search, and the forthcoming article by Hauck is therefore probably "Balder und Týr 'der einhändige Ase', auf IK 583 Söderby-B", Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2001. I can now see the coloured analysis of the figures, which Google Books showed me on the first pass in Hauck's subsequent "Zwei Goldbrakteaten von dem Söderby-Fund aus der Kultregion von Altuppsala. Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, LX", in the Anders Hultgård festschrift (2001, and I have other articles to track down in that). If it is that one, I can see no way the central image features the fishing expedition, but now that I have the article, I'll see if I can find any claim in it that it might be. What do you think of the rune stone? Given that there are crosses on both sides, an elaborate one on the heavily damaged other side, and the absence of a figure in the boat, I'm more inclined to see Jesus fishing for the Devil with his human soul as bait. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Vikings edits
editDo you have an opinion about edits like this? Something similar but slightly but nuanced (but just as long and in the main text) was just added to Vikings, [9].--Ermenrich (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- That etymology section is just generally a mess that needs some severe trimming given what looks like multiple massive additions of that sort over the years... not that I'm volunteering.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think edits like that are messy and they don't add much of value to the general reader.--Berig (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Kievan Rus
editHi Berig,
Are you too involved to place protection on Kievan Rus'? It's a magnet for drive by SPI's who want to change Kiev to Kyiv and do it so mechanically that they even produce nonsense like [[Kyiv|Kyiv]]. There's one running amuck over there right now.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I see that it has been semi-protected for long periods previously, so I semi-protect it indefinitely.--Berig (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! That will certainly simplify things.
- The current SPI seems to have amassed enough edits that he can keep making the disruptive changes. I'm at 3RR, so I'll have to bow out now.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
French help
editRe your offer to help with translations from French: fr:François Florent. Also, In Laurent Ferlet, I added a French external link which I can't read, so can't say what it supports. I could use a translator, but have some other things to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to send you a thank-you click for your top notice, but the "cabal" image prevents the click there in the diff. I missed RexxS in March (and said the arbcase would not improve kindness, nor a single article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt:, although, I am the grandson of a nationally recognized violinist, I am ashamed to say that I am quite ignorant in the terminology of music, but I am sure you will understand where I have missed some points. The French link says:
- I will have a look at fr:François Florent and will try to translate what I can find references for before the weekend.--Berig (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is the text I meant. It seems to say - never learned French but am able to read a menu - that he composed music for a Macron campaign? Worth mentioning if true. Florent died now, there's interest in him now, - perhaps you could make a stub (which then connects to the French) a bit sooner? Last week, I worked on Sylvano Bussotti and András Ligeti in a row, sad work but rewarding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, he has indeed composed music for the Macron campaign. I will see what I can do, later today.--Berig (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's nice, thank you. You could then perhaps also join the deletion discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Someone beat me to it: François Florent.--Berig (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Both good! When Ferlet was suggested for deletion it was a one-liner with one ref and that link broken, so I don't blame the one who thought it wasn't needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Someone beat me to it: François Florent.--Berig (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's nice, thank you. You could then perhaps also join the deletion discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, he has indeed composed music for the Macron campaign. I will see what I can do, later today.--Berig (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
New username for troublesome IP
editAlpharts Tod appears to be here mostly to cause trouble, see his comment e.g. here [10]. It seems to be the IP that was banned over his incivility regarding pictures of the Rosengarten zu Worms a few months ago, same obsessions: Wayland not a rapist, Wildeber, etc. Has the block expired or is this block evasion?--Ermenrich (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see that you have contacted the blocking admin, Callanecc. He is a checkuser, so I think he'll handle it.--Berig (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently the IP was an already blocked user, Ajhenson21.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Too bad that these editors just keep reincarnating themselves.--Berig (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
Technical news
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
Arbitration
- A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
- Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
- Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
- The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Gerda's October corner
edit |
Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Amazing, and a beautiful autumn picture! Thank you :-).--Berig (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, - that image is from last year, the more recent ones are under "songs". Did you see who created my #1700? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I see who started it, and you know that I am truly sorry for you that you have seen a friend get blocked. There's not much I can do about it, because my own opinions rarely count for much anyway. Moreover, I don't know him at all, and my opinions about him as an editor are only based on my strict views on referencing. I am the kind of editor who goes back and double checks my own references, trying to live up to my own standards. I can assure you that a serious, valued and warm-hearted editor like you has no lack of friends on WP, and you can consider me one of them.--Berig (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I opened a new idea on AN, - perhaps say what you think. I have no lack of friends, and I'm grateful, but "mourning becomes Gerda", - that was in 2012, and gets worse with every good-faith editor discouraged, instead of helping each other. We have different talents, and the great thing is that nobody is solely responsible for an article. I remembered on my talk the great people who helped me when I was a beginner, only to be told that that was 12 years ago, as if those great ones would no longer be helpful. Jerome Kohl, a figure to look up to, helped me with my second article telling me that what the quoted reliable source said was wrong, - that's still on the talk page. He was one of the Stockhausen experts of the world, but never gave me the feeling of being inferior. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- ps: Die Fliege was originally created for The Quixotic Potato. I'm quoted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Every day I ask myself if I really should be editing here. But here I am after all that time. It is the good people I meet here that make it worthwhile.--Berig (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- For me, it's about the opposite. I stubbornly decided to stay when "the community" - and wasn't I part of it? - banned one of the most prolific editors Wikipedia ever had, - Oct 16, 9 years ago, and still hurts although it's what he wanted and provoked. Ever since, I have become sort of immune against the impulse to leave this unkind place, up to a certain point. For me, the content I want to tell is what makes it worthwhile, and the horrible loss of content - articles that will not be written - saddens me. Do you know Ray's rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't familiar with it. For me the pain is the great editors who leave because because they don't have the fanatic zeal of POV-crusaders, and can't take the conflicts anymore. I have lost many friends who did not have my "thick skin". I miss them every day, here.--Berig (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I understand missing every day, same for me. As if it wasn't enough that users die, five already this year, and I was close to one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- My condolences, dear Gerda.--Berig (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yoninah, the soul of DYK, - writing the obituary for the Signpost (with much help from more experienced users) was actually helpful. I am thankful that theleekycauldron is now doing much of what she would have done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- As you can see, I have tried to help you with AL. I don't think there is much else I can do.--Berig (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- appreciated, thank you - sorry for noticing this late, today was a day of three bio's, - I try to stick to one, but they keep dying, Evelyn Richter, Luis de Pablo, the latter was expanded in the past by Jerome Kohl (who died last year, I probably mentioned that). Then I turned to the planned one, Willy von Beckerath, no, not by LouisAlain. I can tell you, finding sources for that painter was difficult even for a native speaker. To request that a foreigner should do that: no words. You could perhaps look at the three (all heading for the Main page) to free them from Germanism, but I understand fully if you have other projects. I'd like to stay in touch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, I will help you out if I can. I will be busy for a short while now, but I will have a look later tonight.--Berig (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have made some small changes, now.--Berig (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, noticed. - Did you ever check out what the quixotic potato quoted under my name, and right below Martin Luther King (which made me blush)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, and I am sorry to say that I don't know where to find it.--Berig (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- look above for quixotic and/or quoted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is always nice when a fellow Wikipedian quotes you on their userpage :-).--Berig (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- look above for quixotic and/or quoted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, and I am sorry to say that I don't know where to find it.--Berig (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, noticed. - Did you ever check out what the quixotic potato quoted under my name, and right below Martin Luther King (which made me blush)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- appreciated, thank you - sorry for noticing this late, today was a day of three bio's, - I try to stick to one, but they keep dying, Evelyn Richter, Luis de Pablo, the latter was expanded in the past by Jerome Kohl (who died last year, I probably mentioned that). Then I turned to the planned one, Willy von Beckerath, no, not by LouisAlain. I can tell you, finding sources for that painter was difficult even for a native speaker. To request that a foreigner should do that: no words. You could perhaps look at the three (all heading for the Main page) to free them from Germanism, but I understand fully if you have other projects. I'd like to stay in touch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- As you can see, I have tried to help you with AL. I don't think there is much else I can do.--Berig (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yoninah, the soul of DYK, - writing the obituary for the Signpost (with much help from more experienced users) was actually helpful. I am thankful that theleekycauldron is now doing much of what she would have done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- My condolences, dear Gerda.--Berig (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I understand missing every day, same for me. As if it wasn't enough that users die, five already this year, and I was close to one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't familiar with it. For me the pain is the great editors who leave because because they don't have the fanatic zeal of POV-crusaders, and can't take the conflicts anymore. I have lost many friends who did not have my "thick skin". I miss them every day, here.--Berig (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- For me, it's about the opposite. I stubbornly decided to stay when "the community" - and wasn't I part of it? - banned one of the most prolific editors Wikipedia ever had, - Oct 16, 9 years ago, and still hurts although it's what he wanted and provoked. Ever since, I have become sort of immune against the impulse to leave this unkind place, up to a certain point. For me, the content I want to tell is what makes it worthwhile, and the horrible loss of content - articles that will not be written - saddens me. Do you know Ray's rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Every day I ask myself if I really should be editing here. But here I am after all that time. It is the good people I meet here that make it worthwhile.--Berig (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I see who started it, and you know that I am truly sorry for you that you have seen a friend get blocked. There's not much I can do about it, because my own opinions rarely count for much anyway. Moreover, I don't know him at all, and my opinions about him as an editor are only based on my strict views on referencing. I am the kind of editor who goes back and double checks my own references, trying to live up to my own standards. I can assure you that a serious, valued and warm-hearted editor like you has no lack of friends on WP, and you can consider me one of them.--Berig (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, - that image is from last year, the more recent ones are under "songs". Did you see who created my #1700? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, yes, but you also know how that page looks now. I had forgotten what I said years ago, and perhaps it should go to my gravestone: dream of amnesty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is a consensus even against allowing him to edit in draft space.--Berig (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't care anymore about that case, but will keep dreaming. I run the cabal of the outcast :) - o, and one of us wrote the TFA today, - content content content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think you rather belong to the "heart" of Wikipedia, the editors who write articles and add content!--Berig (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't care anymore about that case, but will keep dreaming. I run the cabal of the outcast :) - o, and one of us wrote the TFA today, - content content content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Middle Ages assessment
editHello, Thank you for your message. All assessment is provisional so any editor with a different opinion is quite free to change it. If you wish I can stop rating Scandinavian articles for the Middle Ages WP.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, please don't! It is a sobering reminder to me that what I am working on is not really that important in the big scheme of things. I consider myself too involved in these articles to make an objective evaluation of what is important or not. I was mainly just curious about the criteria. I can understand if a country is "high" and a specific runestone or eddic poem is "low".--Berig (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Your WP:AN suggestion
editI think you could have given this a little extra time, and hope you were not waiting for me (I was hoping for more voices in the debate and tried to reduce my involvement). I would certainly not oppose an unblock agreement along those lines. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was not waiting for you in particular. It was just ignored by the community for so long that I assumed it was not generally well-received. It is a bit silly hanging there with a proposal that receives no response.--Berig (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Kusma, I have reinserted it per your message.--Berig (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've pinged everyone, hope that we can close this and move on soon. —Kusma (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! It looks good!--Berig (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like it won't work, and that LouisAlain also wants it not to work, see User_talk:LouisAlain#Your_talk_page_access. Well, we tried. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think you did the right thing.--Berig (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like it won't work, and that LouisAlain also wants it not to work, see User_talk:LouisAlain#Your_talk_page_access. Well, we tried. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! It looks good!--Berig (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've pinged everyone, hope that we can close this and move on soon. —Kusma (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)