![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha! The "Snooky" line is based on an April Fools Day prank. Look at the date. -- tronvillain ( talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC) tronvillain ( talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello BoF, Just wanted to apologize for not getting to you sooner and explain myself. The reason I haven't get back to your question sooner is this, I have been very busy working on a college film project of mine that is due this week and I haven't been on here because of that. I still need to finish this project so it might take longer for me to respond. The other reason being that I don't get any notifications on people replying to my comments on the noticeboard so I might not have seen anything. What I meant by "name calling" is making claims that users (including myself) are threatening you even though I and several others have explained that we were not threatening, merely warning. Looking back I probably should have said Undue Claims rather than name calling. That's all I was meaning. Hopefully that answers your question.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 19:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello BoF. I was dismayed by your high-handed dismissal of my additions to the page ‘Warg’. The article as it stood presented the Warg as simply a type of wolf featuring in Scandinavian mythology, with no mention of outlawry. I share your joy in Wikipedia and likewise your joy in Germanic mythology and Indo-European studies and so was delighted to come across the Warg page, knowing that I could contribute material from the Gerstein paper in ‘Myth in Indo-European Antiquity’ which - as I implied in my edit - seems to me to contain a wealth of fascinating information. I’m sorry if I departed from the ‘encyclopaedic tone’ in praising the article - which, I grant you, was probably out of order - but is that really grounds for such blanket condemnation ? I had taken considerable pains to weave the information from the Gerstein paper into the fabric of Wikipedia with a variety of links to other matters of interest e.g. ‘Homo Sacer’ and ‘Feldgeister’. I find myself wondering if you take exception to Gerstein’s presentation of evidence of sinister / negative aspects of Norse deities considered in relation to the Warg. Are you a follower of Asatru : do you consider negative portrayals of gods in the Germanic pantheon to be disrespectful, or even blasphemous? Surely the mythological texts themselves include such negative portrayals : what about Lokasenna ?
Looking into that "Bobo" section of Cryptid whales, I think I've found enough on "Bobo/The Old Man of Monterey Bay" to justify removing it from the article (essentially nothing seems to support describing it as a whale), but also enough to potentially create an article on the creature as a piece of local folklore. I'll see what I can piece together and see what you think. -- tronvillain ( talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I considered leaving your 12-pound gorilla factoid in place, as I'm sure it would eventually citogenicize its way into a reliable source and turn Beaman Monster into one of the more interesting cryptid stories. – dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw you thanked me for my edit on the article "Yahweh". I actually wrote quite a lengthy explanation for that edit on the talk page for the user I was reverting. I probably wrote way too much, but I thought I would let you know just in case you might find my explanation interesting. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tribe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Primitive, State and Brill ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to see you get dragged into this Ayurveda thing. There are some editors apparently really attached to that statement simply because it's often repeated, as opposed to the well established existing antiquity of the practice. -- tronvillain ( talk) 20:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
As you've probably noticed, the RfC finally closed in favour of a disambiguation page. I'm not entirely sure about keeping the Partridge Creek monster on there, but it seems to fit the definition pretty exactly and have more general notability than the other "living dinosaurs" out of A Living Dinosaur? (the last of which is now at AfD). Anyway, I'm curious to see if you think it needs any tweaks. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
can i use this source? https://books.google.com/books?id=dG2sBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT746&lpg=PT746&dq=lake+koskol&source=bl&ots=HxdNXP4flE&sig=RUkQU0-YN7O03hdleYAi3JkPh14&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtr6msu5zcAhUnHDQIHfKhC6AQ6AEIejAN#v=onepage&q=lake%20koskol&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
For the Lake koskol Monster. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Bloodofox, you had not added a Category:Burmese folklore to the Burmese gray wild dog article. You added a red link category which you were not planning on creating. Check its history. Dimadick ( talk) 06:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
People don't seem to send barnstars much these days! But here's one from me :-) Thanks for a lot of hard work bringing a scholarly edge to Old Norse topics over the years. Alarichall ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC) |
I don't think so, myth (if is alive) is a part of theology; in this case, a theology of Slavic Native Faith. In this light, it should be in Category:Slavic paganism and it should contain this information in lead. -- Wojsław Brożyna ( talk) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Recently cleaned up, and something you may want to put on your watchlist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rusalka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samodiva ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I recently rewrote the article Brownie (folklore) and have nominated it for "Good Article" status. I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing it, based on your keen interest in and knowledge of folklore. I do not foresee many problems with this article, but you have been around here longer than I have and I figured you might have some helpful suggestions. I noticed your statement on your userpage that you are no longer involved in the Good Article process, so, if you do not have time to review it, that is perfectly fine. I just thought I would go ahead and ask anyway.
I also wanted to note that I did see your suggestion on my user talk page and that I have not forgotten about it. I started to draft an essay on the subject, but I have not written very much, nor have I saved it on the site yet. I do not usually write essays and usually focus on writing articles, but, since this is a subject I deal with frequently and which relates to many of the issues I have frequently encountered here on Wikipedia, I think that writing an essay for this particular issue would be beneficial. I will let you know once I have something written worth showing to you. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Somehow the category Cryptozoology hadn't been a subset of the category Pseudoscience since May. Might be worth keeping an eye on. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Editor of the Week | |
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your continuous efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Alarichall submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
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}}
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bloodfox's Own Work |
Bloodofox |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning August 19,2018 |
Active since 2005 creating articles and curating material about Old Norse mythology, related topics and folklore. Hard work on templates, categories, naming, and redirecting. Keeps irrelevant, unsourced and subtrivial material out of our articles. Bloodofox has worked hard to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of Cryptozoology and related pages distinguish clearly between scientific zoology and folklore/conspiracy theory. Bloodofox spends time undoing things to sustain the quality of Wikipedia while not discouraging good faith contributions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore member, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies member, Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture member |
Recognized for |
over a decade of active participation |
Notable work |
Improving articles about indigenous beliefs, practices, culture, and values of the Germanic peoples |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7 ☎ 15:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I find it ironic that I was Editor of the Week before you, considering you have been doing this for thirteen years and I have only been doing it for just under two. Then again, the "Editor of the Week" award has only been going on since January 2013 and it sounds like you were more active during the early years of your time here than you are currently, which might help explain that apparent paradox. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 22:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It is clear that your constant and incessant raising of list of List of cryptids for deletion by the back door (with multiple merge proposals taking place over months, anbd multiple boards) is banging to exasperate other eds. This is beginning to enter the realms of wp:tendentious editing. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
In addition stop commenting on eds on article talk pages, this is not what they are for. Nor should you assume you know what motivates objections to your suggestions, this is a borderline adhomenim and may well violate wp:nap. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
As requested There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox, I noticed your efforts to clean up cryptozoology on Wikipedia. While this doesn't exactly fit the problems you've found with cryptozoologists and folklore, parts of the article on the extinct Elasmotherium appears to have been hijacked by the theory that the create survived to historical times and is reflected in stories about unicorns, etc. I refer specifically to Elasmotherium#Possible historical witnesses. I am not really very well trained in the topic, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention to see what you think should be done about it. For instance, it's rather odd that the article nowhere states when mainstream science believes Elasmotherium went extinct.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bloodofox. Congratulations on being made Editor of the Week. That one was certainly well deserved. I've given some thought to the earlier discussion at my talk page regarding changes at Category:Germanic peoples. As you said back then, Category:Germanic tribes is indeed too narrow to cover all the articles currently contained at that category, while Category:Germanic tribal groups is a quite unnatural term. I'm contemplating merging both of these categories into an all-encompassing Category:Historical Germanic peoples, which would be a subcategory of Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe. Would that be a better solution? Krakkos ( talk) 13:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Týr, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brill, Garm and Gothic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
why did you remove the infobox i added? Drake 567 ( talk) 09:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems like folklore written as something real: Ghost Ship of Northumberland Strait. If you have sources, drop them on the Talk page, and I'll get to it when I get to it ; ). Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to get your opinion on a closed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Theosophy a Religion? It has me for delete, a "not notable but keep", a "keep with no restriction on future merging or other refactoring", a "keep or merge to Theosophy" and a keep. I'm thinking of trying a bold merge given that the author never even participated in the deletion discussion, but I'm not wrong in thinking that nothing there really establishes notability, right? -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bloodofox. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Bloodofox! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hey there Bloodofox,
I'm fairly new to wikipedia. So I apologize if this isn't the best way to get in contact with you, but I was really curious about your recent edit to the Muspelheim page. I'm a student editor for the page, and based on my research. A good bit of the information there was fairly accurate. Has new information come to light or is a total rewrite just necessary? I just wanted to make sure I'm not adding bad information when I do contribute. Rvayyy ( talk) 15:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Krakkos emptied and redirected two categories on July 1: Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies and Ancient Germanic history and culture. I have done my best to repair the damage; I found one Scandinavian studies scholar who had been wrongly placed in the Old Norse category, and I changed around the subcategorization with reference to archaeology. But the religion material appears to have already been removed from the history and culture category, and there may be other problems that need resolving with reference to that category. Could you please look at the categorization in that latter area and fix anything I haven't fixed, or have fixed wrongly? Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
OK [12], from wp:npa "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing; see that policy for more detail.)". Slatersteven ( talk) 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No one is coordinating [13], Please AGF. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi bloodofox,
I made intensive about the alledged mural. I guess you mean the Hamburg-mural painting.
There is no internet-reference to the mural. Even if it existed, it does not mean any evidence for the name black sun.
It is proven that the name "black sun" was only used 50 years after the end of the NS-era. There are several German sources which state this! Especially the official Wewelsburg museum publications.
Furthermore the statements about the original sun-weel incrustation are not very acurate.
I would be greally reateful if you would leave the corrected version.
Greetings!
Please read WP:ROPE. A good strategy for dealing with persistent bad editing can be to pull your thumbs from the dike and walk away. Once the flood gets deep enough, some other editors will come along and clean up the mess. Moreover, if you give the bad editing a chance to flourish, it will become really obvious and thus, easier to convince people that it needs to be fixed. You risk getting overheated in your defense of Wikipedia and could get sanctioned for how you react to people. Please avoid falling into that trap, which has nailed many otherwise good editors over the years. Jehochman Talk 03:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I was accused of deliberately deleting … something, so I'll reply here. Please don't use terms like conflating if we are going to chat about this, it just seems loaded and dismissive. Some cryptids deserve articles or mention based on fact and I haven't even begun to make my mind up about this one, I'm interested in edge cases and want deeper insight than the formulation cryptozoology = pseudoscience = cryptozoology. Classifying local knowledge as folklore suggests to me that advancing this discussion with a culturally common frame of reference may be difficult, so I'm happy to leave it at that. However, you took the time to reply and air your view, so I wanted to do you the same courtesy. Best regards for the new year, cygnis insignis 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Before and After. You might want add it to your watchlist. Not that you need more articles on your plate ; ) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
At the DRV and AfD discussion on Dingonek you've probably been making it harder for people who agree with you than anything. It seems like you have a lot of passion for the area, but a number of comments have been, or at least virged, on being personal attacks. My understanding is that you are strong contributor elsewhere. I know that we can all get riled over things but I'd suggest that toning it down a bit might be the best way forward. Take this with a grain of salt and please realize I'm honestly trying to help. In all cases, best of luck. Hobit ( talk) 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bloodofox. I wonder if you couldn't give a look through the contributions of User:Xactnorge. He has been making strange additions to various articles, taking ancient and medieval sources that equate various peoples, gods, concepts, etc, literally and often adding the info to articles in which they are not relevant. For example, he has been trying to add the equation of the Getae with the Goths to various articles, and I just removed a bunch of strange information equating Thor and Heimdall with various figures from Sif. I've reversed a number of his additions, but I suspect that an actual expert on Norse mythology should have a look through as well.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox! I just wanted to make you aware of what may be some questionable sources used in the Steller's sea cow article under the section "Later reported sightings". Willy Ley and some books with "Cryptozoology" in the title appear there.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norse cosmology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox,
I was wondering if you might check out the "Cultural signifance" section of Irish elk. It looks like a bunch of highly outdated sources and possible OR and synth to me, particularly the "folklore" part.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. At
this move log entry, you wrote moved page
Aarne–Thompson classification system to
Aarne–Thompson classification systems (The article seems to have been under the impression that there is one system, but there are in fact two.
The current article seems to describe just one system: The Aarne–Thompson classification system ... is an index ... . The system is named after its creators ... . The system understands folktales as ... . The system is an essential tool for folklorists. ...
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the singular form is the correct title. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 08:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Anglo-Saxon paganism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
16:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Germanic pagan practices. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Death in Germanic mythology has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Germanic pagan practices. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
17:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Woman in Black (supernatural) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newly-minted article has some issues. Any folklore sources you can recommend or can add to it would be appreciated. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Bloodofox, do you remember me? I was editing articles about Norse myths on Croatian Wikipedia, and I'm grateful to you because your edits helped a lot to me. Odin's grandpa, Bölþorn, is one of my favourite jotnar, maybe because he has an interesting name, although we will never know why he was named such. Thank you for finishing his article. :) Hoping you are well! Wish you a beautiful summer. - Miha ( talk) 09:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The books which I cited on mapinguari were written by degree-holding zoologists, and many of them are used elsewhere on Wikipedia for other articles. Cryptozoology is not a subject which attracts much mainstream attention, so you're not likely to find many "academic" sources for information. Then again, having said that, the two articles by David Oren which I cited come from Edentata, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by IUCN. As you cannot possibly argue against their value as reliable and academic sources, I'm not really sure what sort of sources you expect to be added. Did you even bother to check my sources? I also made sure to add the words "allegedly," "supposedly," etc. to everything stated about the mapinguari and its claimed eyewitness.
The cryptozoology articles are already full of unsourced, blatantly incorrent information, and cannot be improved if your obstructive behaviour continues. Also, you failed to remove the notice requesting that the page be re-written: since you have undone my rewriting, you should put the notice back on the page. Thank you.
Just as I went to post this, I noticed that you replaced the WikiProject Cryptozoology banner with a banner for WikiProject Folklore (You have also, for some reason, gutted the article's lead and removed the lead image.) The point of cryptozoology, and what makes it distinct from any study of purely mythical creatures, is that there is real scientific debate over whether its subjects are real or not, and what they might be if they are real. Insisting that this is pure folklore as opposed to cryptozoology is insinuating that the Indians and rubber-tappers who claim this is an actual animal are all liars. Furthermore, if you regard the article as folkloric in nature, why on earth do you want academic zoological sources?
"Juma" is mentioned in Oren's peer-reviewed article, which you for some reason regard as less reliable than a newspaper article. -- Bradypus Tamias ( talk) 22:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mapinguari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siren ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that a Wikimedia image you contributed appears as figure 7 here. Nice job! Alarichall ( talk) 19:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Am I supposed to understand your name as Blood of Ox or Blood of Fox? Toad02 ( talk) 20:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
From the text, it's pretty clear it's reports that were made to either the Department of Conservation and Land Management (a government department in Western Australia) or the Mystery Animal Research Centre of Australia (perhaps sounds dubious, but the article is using data published by Conservation Science Western Australia Journal, which is a government owned journal if I'm reading correctly, so I don't think there's any Reliable Source/Verifiability problem here).
"Purported" has multiple similar definitions in dictionaries, but includes
to pretend to be or to do something, especially in a way that is not easy to believe
Cambridge English Dictionary which is a pretty non-NPOV connotation. "Claimed" is probably equally fine as "reported", both just mean the person told someone that's what happened. They said they saw a Thylacine, they claimed they saw a Thylacine, they reported they saw a Thylacine - these all sound pretty equivalent to me. Like, everyone can agree they said it, regardless of whether they think the person saying it is telling the truth, lying, or just mistaken. For what it's worth, the source uses "report" Wily D 18:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aarne-Thompson-Uther Index, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Death in Germanic mythology. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seeress (Germanic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ganna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
We have had many disagreements over the years, but I wanted you to know that I respect you for what you do. You have high standards for content and you try to hold articles on Wikipedia to those standards. Over the course of your time here, you have made many excellent contributions to articles on Norse mythology and folklore. More recently, you have done excellent work in trying to combat the POV-pushing of supporters of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. I think your contributions warrant some appreciation, so I am giving you this barnstar. — Katolophyromai ( talk) 01:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Svartur Völva Death Curse Barnstar
I award this Barnstar to Bloodofox for their bravery in facing the Svartur Völva Death Curse. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC) |
Hey, I made a bold edit on the Ozark Howler article, and wanted your opinion as you have edited this area. From 2019, the article has been highjacked by fringe proponents. Before I reverted this was the article [16]. There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources that discuss this subject. It was apparently a cryptozoological hoax that seems to have fooled many in the fringe communities. Is the article worth keeping? There is a serious lack of reliable sources on the topic. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to ask you what parts of my edit, excluding the speficication of the stanzasa, which I reverted in my second edit, did you refer to as misinformation. I added Bellows' opinion on the two stanzas and added his translation of the others. Eladabudi ( talk) 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Eladabudi ( talk) 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Bloodofox, I see that you recently deleted one of my previous edits on the article Phoenix (folklore) by considering my change a WP:RS fail. I respect your commitment to Wikipedia but the source I added has been used as a reliable footnote on Wikipedia before. In fact the people who translated the the book which the link was attached to even have their own Wikipedia articles dedicated to them (see Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer). Also the original reference was linked to a not very notable website containing the information, however if you look at the new version I made, it is linked to Google Books. It would be nice if you let me bring back the edit or if you change it yourself. Any rewording can be done if you please. One more thing to add, it's funny that in the section above you already had a discussion about a Gnostic-related subject with the Odin's eye article. Maybe that means you think my edit was also related to the website titled Gnostic Warrior which seems to be an unreliable source, nevertheless that website does not own the term Gnostic. Gnosticism was a religion that originated in the Middle East during the Christian age, not having any ownership to the last-mentioned. Suitably it is has been confused with the term agnosticism as well. I'm telling you this because you might not know what the religion is by thinking I am using scripture from Christianity or Judaism which are not the same as Gnosticism. If you really want to see proof that the pheonix is mentioned in its literature get this book here or read the online version here, if you feel like doing all the research. No it is not another interpretation of the word chol. The Gnostic Bible is not the same bible that is used by Christians and Jews. I did not mean to take the references you removed from the Odin's eye article and put them in my section on this page, that happened automatically. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. Prana1111 ( talk) 01:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Have you seen the relatively new article
Odin's eye? Looks like there's a lot of questionable stuff there to me, check out Independent scholar Moe Bedard
[1]. believes that there is correlation between Odin's one eye and the Egyptian symbol, the ‘
The Eye of Horus’. The Eye of Horus, also referred to as Wedjat, was a symbol of protection, royalty, power and health.
[2] Horus loses his eye in battle with his usurping uncle, Seth however it is recovered and restored, also symbolising new life. This act restores the Egyptian line of succession, also symbolises new life and new beginnings. Both the lost eyes of Odin and Horus represent sacrifice, healing and restoration. While Horus offers his eye for the resurrection of his father, Odin offers his eye to protect his people from the impending Ragnarok, the prophetic destruction of his home, Asgard lead by Surt.
--
Ermenrich (
talk)
14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox,
Someone has just translated the German page for Continental Germanic Mythology, which adds a lot of new content. Unfortunately, none of it is sourced inline (a problem I often see with articles on German Wikipedia and a reason I've always been reluctant to edit there). Since you're sort of our resident expert on the subject I was hoping you might have a look. I'm more of a heroic legends kind of guy (and one day I'll actually write an article about them!).-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.
![]() | This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out. |
==
Emicho's Avenger ( talk) 01:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Trout Lake Monster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks to be another local legend written as if WP considers it could be real. I’ll get to it eventually, but you may want to review it sooner. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Io, Saturnalia! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ― Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Certain users are advocating the deletion of Category:Early Germanic philosophy because it has few entries. The category was recently created, and contains only Hávamál and Sigrdrífumál. Are you aware of additional articles that are relevant to the category? Early Germanic philosophy is largely based upon the chapter Ideals and Patterns of Thought (pp. 153-166) from the book The Germanic People (1960) by Francis Owen. Are you aware of additional sources covering this interesting subject? Might there be more suitable titles than "Early Germanic philosophy" for this category? Wishing you a happy Yule. Krakkos ( talk) 17:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Bishzilla is sad now. Little user's questions make sense. But is very handsome monster! [Bishzilla always has a soft spot for those.] bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British big cats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British folklore ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This new user does not seem to understand how categories work. He inserts Jersey Devil in Category:Devils, for example, Scylla in Category:Succubi, or creates a Category:Phoenix birds with one entry. Or this: [19]. All this seems dubious to me.
Since you are involved with folklore, maybe you know where to find users who know about mythology. I tried the portal, but that is old. And there does not seem to be a project. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Saw this and thought of you often having quite the opposite experience : ) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello BloodofFox, Just thought I'd tell you this so that we are on the same page. Although we have but heads more than once, I saw that you joined WikiProject Cryptozoology and your goals for the project. And I want to let you know that I appreciate the changes you made to the main page. I had an idea that I've never had the time to discuss this but With said articles I fond it interesting that none of the fringe theories have been discusses on eaxh said "cryptid". What I mean by this is that the pseudoscientists so called theories on whatever the topic is are noteworth enough to be included unless the source is unreliable forum based. My idea with this is have it in "theories" section where we have coverage of pseudoscience and science being written in a neutral objective way that counts within the boundaries of coverage on Wikipiedia. This would be fascinating to see from a readers perspective as it is an alternate theory that is never acknowledged because of the limits of Fringe. This can always change since I am currently swamped with stuff on and off Wikipiedia. But I wanted to mention it before I forgot. Happy editing!-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let you know when my workload starts to lighten, looking forward to working together.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 01:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
In Article they translate troll as Fiends
also goblins idea inspired by trows and trolls
أبو السعد 22 ( talk) 20:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British big cats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British folklore ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Hypothetical civilizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 09:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox, I just stumbled across the the article Regnator omnium deus. It has no in-line citations and seems to be making a comparison between Tacitus and the Edda that appears completely unfounded without some explanation. There are sources listed below and it's possible that the connection is based on the often completely wild speculations of Otto Höfler, but without access to Simek's text I can't say. I was wondering if you might have a look, anyway.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You claim that my reversion of Loveland Frog was "unexplained", but if you'd bothered to look at the talk page, you'd see that I have given an argument supporting inclusion of the image. Your deletion comes off as unsupported. -- Qualiesin ( talk) 17:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
The infobox I have created has accurate information regarding the deity Thor. Sure, not many have heard of Jayanta. Jayanta is the son of Indra as Thor is the son of Odin. Odin and Indra is the kind of the Devas while Odin is the king of the Æsir.
Just because of this, please do not revert my edit. It has other useful info of who Thor's wife is and parentage, etc.
Thank you, Leornendeealdenglisc ( talk) 20:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 11:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to alert all current editors. I'm self-alerted for all DS at the top of my talkpage. Thanks for your help. Did you see my edits to Society of Classical Poets? It hardly warrants an article - the only notable thing is the hoax Inaugural address, but that's pretty interesting and was well covered. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I submitted (well, am about to submit) an arbitration enforcement request regarding your recent conduct on Falun Gong-related pages. It will be here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the Wee Flea is a WP:RS fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 老坛陈醋 ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at this article because I know you have tried to improve it before. Mass content has been added about a supposed "vile vortex" but the content looks very unreliable to me. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my invalid edits to the overview section of the Asgard article. I have edited the part of information regarding the Nine Worlds. However, I have dared to resubmit my edits about the fate of Asgard in Ragnarok, as well as mentioning that it consisted of smaller lands. I have provided references for this information and I hope you find them valid and relevant enough to leave this part of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yours.kkuznets ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I was responding to the lack of consensus. Put the box back until consensus is reached. That is the expected behavior. I came to the conversation as a disinterested editor. That was my judgement. Hash it out then edit. I will becsaying the same on that talk page less directly. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Bloodofox: You presented an interesting point: "Irrelevant, Shen Yun and the rest of the new religious movement is based out of the US, where they face no such persecution and actively lobby the US government" So, why did not you delete the sentence in the second paragraph: "where the Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be an "anti-society cult""? If this sentence is allowed, it is also allowed to present more detail about Chinese government and Falun Gong in this page. Also, you said Shen Yun is based on US, so it is okay to add some comments from US government on Shen Yun, right? Please answer two questions separately, thanks! Sky-Dream ( talk) 03:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I didnt want to clutter the talk page but your assertion that "Scholars use the phrase new religious movement for what is coloquially referred to as a cult.” isn't accurate... They aren’t synonyms or anything close. Rastafarianism, Mormonism, and the Baháʼí Faith are all NRMs that are very far from what we mean when we say cult. This doesn't mean that some NRMs aren’t cults and vice versa, but most aren’t. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
For your decade’s worth of contributions regarding Germanic mythology. Karaeng Matoaya ( talk) 16:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC) |
I think you want to change "as you Blue Canoe doing above" to "as you see Blue Canoe doing above", or something like that. Notrium ( talk) 22:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just tried to find where Blue Canoe has used wording like "left wing media organizations", and couldn't find it. Maybe you could be more specific in your message? Notrium ( talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orang Pendek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malay and Malaysian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at this. The user who created the article recently reverted my edits and added Dinsdale own book as a source to the article many times. He seems to be wanting to argue that Dinsdale actually captured the loch ness monster on film. In reality the footage he took has been dismissed by experts as a boat. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but the article reads as pro-fringe. What do you think the best thing to do with this article is? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Just in case you had any helpful advice to share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that you are deleting the edits that I am being doing on the Wikipedia pages which needed thorough restructuring.
I was adding the relevant citations and was in the middle of it, all of a sudden all the changes were being removed.
That means you are discouraging to add any information to enrich this platform, without any valid reason? If you have something to add in a constructive way, I am open to it, but removing each and every edits without any reason is not acceptable.
You have deleted more than 6000 characters from a page and contributed zero character in it, deleting a content based on its classification/ categorisation doesn't contribute anyway in deleting the contents from the page. It is strange to note that how coining something as pseudo-science can be relevant to remove a piece of information. Are you accusing me that I am promoting pseudo science, or any statement gives any such promotional motif. Then the category crypto-zoology shouldn't exist in Wikipedia, then being an administrator of Wikipedia you are accusing Wikipedia to promote psuedo-science, which sounds ridiculous.
So, please don't abuse your status by removing the whole content without substantial justification, or providing relevant citation.
And I will definitely mail this anomaly to relevant Wikipedia authority. -- AranyaPathak ( talk) 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Please site some relevant cultural anthropology texts/ monographs before changing the category from crypto-zoology to folklore, it is not a scholarly practice.
For you consideration, practicing Scientism is equally reprehensible like pseudo-science, which is not a scientific practice, pseudo-science and Scientism are equally distant from science
A sober behavior is expected from a scientifically oriented person, cavalier attitude is not expected.
It definitely proves that you have direct reason to act one these kinds of pages.
Science practices value neutrality, and in the domain of knowledge a degree of disinterestedness is expected.
Hence, kindly do consider.
-- AranyaPathak ( talk) 20:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
curprev 18:26, 21 July 2020 Bloodofox talk contribs 1,003 bytes -1,675 - Heuvelmans is a fringe source, this is not an improvement, article needs to be rewritten from scratch with reliable sources undo/thank
PLease refer to /info/en/?search=Bernard_Heuvelmans
-- AranyaPathak ( talk) 20:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you are the only person in this world, who have some doubt that cryptozoology is a psuedoscience.
First time in my life I got to know that someone might think cryptozoology as a discipline of science.
without reference, source and citation no one can change the content based on personal preference, it is strictly against Wikipedia norms, and also outside any scholarly/ academic norms and conventions and there lies the problem. Rule 6. Cite Cite Cite ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia)
Why you are deliberately excluding entries and vandalizing all cryptozoological pages, with personal agenda, and privileged position.
Its better you contribute in folklore. If you have any target to fulfill in folklore category, why don't you work on it, rather than vandalizing other cryptozoological entries, and populate the folklore category, dont try to smuggle entry from a different category, this practice is alien to any academic site.
And also please provide relevant citation on "Mongoloian folklore" related to Alamas
Please try to comprehend this is a formal problem, not a substantial one.
-- AranyaPathak ( talk) 07:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "
Appealing my topic ban". Thank you. —
Newslinger
talk
06:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
you may not make any reverts, subject to the usual exceptions, on Falun Gong
You have been sanctioned for edit warring on Falun Gong.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an
uninvolved administrator under the authority of the
Arbitration Committee's decision at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the
log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the
banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be
blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Allerseelen (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ravenswing 09:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
AfD in the usual place Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't think my comment belonged on ANI so I'll just share it here considering what you shared there. A few months back I helped a friend install and setup software to block Youtube ads. The reason he needed it was that he noticed that her little girls were spammed with problematic ads. He didn't know what it was but he did mention that some ads were from the ET. I then informed him on what ET really was and expressed my surprise that such content is legal to broadcast to Canadians via Youtube. These were apparently standard sponsored ads that could appear in association to any video, not because the girls were on a particular channel. Anyway, that's the story... — Paleo Neonate – 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, – Joe ( talk) 09:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The case request "Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution" that you were a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request.
The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
In case you are still interested in deleting it: list was restored per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10 § List of superstitions. Happy editing, Paradoctor ( talk)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Shen Yun, you may be
blocked from editing. You're advised to revert source removals done against earlier WP:CON
Berehinia (
talk)
03:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Rowsell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rowsell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ffranc ( talk) 09:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Fox |
For using blood of ox, rather than that of fox. Red Panda 25 19:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
I don't get it? Why did you delete out of top of the article such an important data as the origin place / folklore / tradition of Krampus following St. Nicholas folklore had strong tradition and popularity lasting for several centuries such significant and long folklore tradition in countries as Austria, Slovenia, Bavaria (very very strong and long traditon); North Italy, Czech Republic and Hungary are right behind... There is million sources out there. The place of origin or common practice is a standard and basic information for every historical wiki article. How could an average and ignorant reader from Africa, Asia or America know where character (folklore) comes from? Alpine town folklore is such a general term, should be more specific. Meanwhile, no one in United States didn't even know what or who Krampus was until 6,7 years when Hollywood started making Krampus movies one after another. Would be great if you put those folklore countries information back in top of the article. Sportomanokin ( talk) 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Are Fakelore stories and characters within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore? Should I tag them for the Project or not? Dimadick ( talk) 15:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Natalis soli invicto! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello User:Bloodofox, thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, contested page moves require a discussion to be opened on the talk page. The article is about cross necklaces and the sources make reference to this term, while none make reference to cross pendants. If you still think the article should be moved, you are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page, though I most certainly will be opposing the move per WP:COMMONNAME, among other reasons. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mjölnir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Slavonic.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope the article Strängnäs stone is interesting for you.-- Berig ( talk) 08:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stith Thompson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox! I'm putting together at least a stub on Germanic heroic legend (currently a redirect to Alliterative verse) at my sandbox. Feel free to contribute if you have time! User:Ermenrich/sandbox-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Greetings and Salutations,
I noticed your edits on "Comparative Mythology", and wanted your opinion and/or insight on adding yet another section involving: "Afterlife/ life after death, other realms/ planes of existence, and/or eternal oblivion". Im a mere basic scholar at best (more of a hobbyist actually), when it comes to this field of study.
I'm willing to put forward some time and effort in regards to this, but possibly your help and/or assistance in making it more complete, etc would prove beneficial to the article as a whole. Regards ~ Gizziiusa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vanir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jan de Vries.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Bloodofox ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. So, I'm checking my watchlist as usual today, making edits here, reverting the usual tomofoolery there. I make what would be a typical edit ( here), and next thing I know I am blocked from editing for 24 hours ( [20]). After asking the admin—whose name I did not recognize—what on earth was going on, the admin informed me that last year the same admin had apparently decided myself and several others would be added to a 0 revert rule list without expiration ( here's the list). The admin did not justify this decision, but it was apparently due to some kind of arbcom decision about a sanction (which I was not at all involved in). Again, this was done without any kind of discussion and Falun Gong has a 1 RR rule that I have long been aware of. Apparently the admin had left me a form note on my talk page about it last year, which I hadn't noticed (or I would have immediately appealed it and you wouldn't be reading this right now). This is arbitrary, unjustified, and pointless. Can I get an unblock? :bloodofox: ( talk) 04:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
From WP:REMOVED: "If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its content." You are welcome to make your own appeal at Arbcom once the block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
[21] - not sure why legends and folklore are being categorized as cryptids, on a massive scale. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately Guerillero hasn't been online since I posted above. Sorry, Guerillero, but if I wait any longer it'll become progressively less meaningful to unblock. Bloodofox, you have been unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
Hi, Bloodofox. I'd like to point out that two paragraphs which you seemed have written in the "Theories" section of Æsir–Vanir War have recently been removed. I don't have access to the book which was quoted, so I can't really revert the edit, but it seems like it needs to be reverted. The anonymous user left an edit summary. Eladabudi ( talk) 20:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox! I've finally published Germanic heroic legend and am turning my attention to the list of figures you suggested. I wonder if you might be able to help/have any suggestions for sources to find 1) the etymologies of some of the names and 2) the proposed historical (or non-historical) origins of some of the figures. I have Gillespie, but he only covers names appearing in Middle High German and not always the etymology or proposed origins. I'm putting the new list article together at User:Ermenrich/sandbox.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
In this edit you messed up a BLP article with serious POV pushing, most notably by labeling an individual a "conspiracy theorist" without obtaining any consensus in advance. For the matter, the discussion that followed at Talk:JP Sears#RFC on conspiracy theorist in lead re-affirmed with a clear majority that this term shouldn't be used in the lead (or at all). It is frightening to think how many articles such "Rewrite [more like "Ruining"] article" one could make. While you are entitled to your own opinions, conspiratorial or not, you cannot dictate who a person is on his biography article in such a way. Use the talk page next time, please. Bezrat ( talk) 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Bloodofox, I have started an RfC on the article Goths that may be of interest to you, see Talk:Goths#RfC.-- Berig ( talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox. Do you mind looking at the Jonathan Downes article? There have been problems with it from the very beginning. I just removed a bunch of promotional sources to blogs. Is he a notable cryptozoologist? He has published a look of books on it but I cannot find any reliable references reviewing his work. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I just dipped my toe back into Wikipedia to edit The Two Babylons and who should I see on the same article a few days later but you! It reminded me of old conversations on Talk:Easter. We might not recognize each other on the street, but I hope you're doing well. - Ben ( talk) 02:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Three years ago you added a "rewrite" banner to Beast of Dean. It has had multiple edits since then - do you think the banner is still needed?— Rod talk 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you want this take to arbitration? There is no consensus for the edits you're trying to force. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 21:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You wrote:
As with any fringe-adjacent article on Wikipedia, ask yourself: Who is attempting to scrub this article? There's your answer.
The article is about a celebrity, and you are alleging that there are people out there who want to scrub to scrub the celebrity's connection to fringe theories from the article.
But!
Most people (I guess) who believe in a fringe theory would obviously be proud of a celebrity being associated with it, and would like that celebtrity endorsement to be written about on Wikipedia, not scrubbed. Only a minority of believers (I guess) would want their club of people in the know about a conspiracy to stay as exclusive as possible (so they themselves can feel more special) and would get jealous when more people know about the conspiracy, like when it would be featured on a celebrity's Wikipedia page.
So who you are talking about?
-- Distelfinck ( talk) 21:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I request that you delete this post, and if you do, then feel free to delete my reply. It is certainly a personal attack but even more clearly it is disrupting away from a topic of discussion where I think we probably agree on more than you realize (because you seem to be angry and not reading carefully). Anyway, if you keep making personal attacks I think I will act upon it, because this is going on and on, and not good for the article.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Apart from the works cited in the Goffart section, maybe this is interesting also, which is a retrospective collection:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
See e.g. the intro page 34. Articles include:
Apart from being utter nonsense, (both counter-factual, and illogical), this talk page post is purely about me [26]. It could be used as a good example of what ad hominem and "aspersions" mean. I am sure you realize that such bullying is against WP policy. I am asking you to delete it. I don't intend to answer on that talk page, because it is clearly purely disruptive, and purely intended to be disruptive, so this can cause problems on that talk page where at least some editors are trying to work constructively. Why are you so obsessed with me? What annoys you are the published sources. I am just a Wikipedia editor acting in good faith, and according to policy. An editor asked if there were objections to a proposal in an aggressive way which was clearly an "or else" proposition. My answer was short. Your behaviour towards me is aggressive and personal and inappropriate.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw, but I rolled back most of the article to its state of 2 July 2019. I've been trying to kick start things by just editing, but I definitely can't do it alone. The help of yourself and other good editors on sprucing up the sometimes quite bad state of the article in 2019 would definitely be appreciated.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sól and Dwarf.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Category:Eschatology in norse mythology. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Category:Eschatology in norse mythology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
MClay1 (
talk)
14:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the meaning of the name Sangdeboeuf?-- Berig (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been thinking for a while about our illustrations on Norse mythology. Back during the first years of WP, we had a lack of pictures and we added any pictures we could find, but nowadays we have more of pictures of archaeological finds and picture stones. Since scholarly sources prefer to use picture stones and archaeological finds as illustrations, I think that we should too. In the article Valhalla for instance, there are several pictures, but there is not a single illustration of what is usually identified as Valhalla on picture stones.-- Berig (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I found this book and this one; I suspect the are fringe but I'm not sure. Could you help me to check whether they could be used as sources? Best regards and thanks in advance.-- Carnby ( talk) 12:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Our article on Forseti includes some odd information in the lead but not the body cited to Hans Kuhn (philologist) that the name is actually a loan of Greek Poseidon, including speculation about when Greek traders might have introduced the name. Do you happen to know if this is actually what Kuhn was arguing and whether this proposal is common enough to be cited in the article lead?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
Apologies if you're getting two-notifications. I found out about DM'ing and so I deleted the original post but then I found out that talking about this publicly would be preferable as others can chime in on it so I will go with this instead. I will be referring to myself as Duploom and I have come to discuss a certain matter with you. I selected you because, based off of the edit history of the Wiki article on Eir, you seem to have a history of familiarity with the article. It's this familiarity that makes you desirable to me as I suspect information that was once available on that article is now missing and I wish to discern whether or not it was even ever there at all.
At around early 2018, when I was into the New Age, I was seeking healing and somebody recommended that I turn to Norse Gods. Naturally, with a bit of research, I turned to the one called "Eir" for assistance. Now, when I read the Wiki article on Eir, I definitely remember it being written that there was a woman who would be visited by Eir herself in her dreams. There was a footnote at the bottom of the article which you could click in order to see the woman's own website and there, you can read more about her in-dream visitations by Eir. I remember reading a bit of this. Now, some time passed, I tried to check the Version History of that Wiki article in order to try and find mention of that dream prophetess but, it's gone. I used the Internet Archive as well and I still cannot find it. You see, I am currently mentally ill, so much so that at one point, I hallucinated seeing an entire Cathedral that turned out to not exist at all and so I would like to see if anyone remembers any mention of an "Eir Dream-Prophetess."
Do you remember any such edits to the Eir article?
Regards, Duploom
Duploom ( talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Io, Saturnalia! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hold Nickar has been cut down to be about the nixie (and reference to the Hold Nickar on some TV show), but was originally created with theories of deriving from Hjaldr Hnickar, hence being originally a name of Óðinn, and being a precursor of both Santa Claus and the term "Old Nick": version by the creator, VocalIndia, who is putting up a spirited defense at ANI in a section they started, where their edits to the article are being used as both good and bad examples of their work. They themself removed most of that material while the article was at AfD, and Kleuske removed more in what is currently the latest edit, but I note the short description still says "god". I would simply redirect to the nixie article—where it's not even a See also—but the AfD was a bit of a mess. It was soft closed as delete on grounds of minimal participation after receiving only one !vote, for deletion on the grounds of being just a name for the nixie. But it was restored 8 days later after a request ( page log) and the AfD was subsequently closed as keep after belated listing at the Mythology Wikiproject and a number of !votes asserting RS. So I wonder if you could give me your view on the sources, as someone with more expertise than me. I have pinged the author since they themself cut out almost all the non-nixie material in response to the first AfD !vote (as well as Kleuske who followed up on that by removing it from the intro); I can't see any mention in that AfD of the option of redirecting, and perhaps VocalIndia would be amenable to that. If not, I think a second AfD might be procedurally required, with Wikiproject Folklore notified this time. But with folklore subjects there's always a possibility that valid sources are being discounted on an IDONTLIKEIT basis, so I'd like to get an expert opinion. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you've removed a great deal of the copy editing I've been doing today on Baba Yaga, but you may not have noticed that many errors have now been restored by you. What I've been doing is not vandalism, but correct formatting of sources, adding links, and generally preparing the article for a GAN. I've enough experience with Wikipedia editing to know what I'm doing. I will be looking at Johns (and other sources to ensure the article is properly written. In the mean time, please understand if I restore some of the corrections and additions I have been making, whilst at the same time ensuring that your positive contributions are not lost. Amitchell125 ( talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TE_by_Bloodofox
Thanks
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
23:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TE2_by_bloodofox
Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
01:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox, there is a discussion ongoing on Talk:Breidablik which you may have seen already. If you have time to help out, I think your opinion on conventions would be very valuable, whatever you reckon. Thanks! Ingwina ( talk) 07:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox. I was wondering if you had a recommendation for an intro to Norse Myth for college students. Back in the day I read Hilda Ellis Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, but that was written quite a long time ago. Is there something more recent that would be just as good (and easily available)?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
I've just become aware that for some reason we have a separate article lindworm to dragon. In my opinion lindworm (and its Norse equivalents) are just native Germanic words for dragon, but what do you think? Looking at the article, do you think a merger is in order? It's been there since 2003.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I see this is still a red link. Nice Commons category. Contains one exemplar of the houaʀ bracteate inscription, much discussed by Karl Hauck and others, and is in the news again because Lisbeth Imer et al. have interpreted another bracteate inscription as the earliest attestation of Óðinn: AP, press release from the TV2 ref cited at da:Vindelev-skatten. ( de:Schatzfund von Vindelev doesn't seem to have the story yet.) Might you or a talk-page watcher be inclined to fill the gap? (BTW Hauck is at de:Karl Hauck (Mediävist) but sv:Karl Hauck (stub), so no ILL above.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 23:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Template:Anglo-Saxon months has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Anglo-Saxon time. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Hi Bloodofox - I noticed two templates having more or less the same function and saw you made one and might be interested in giving your thoughts on the merger I've proposed. Ingwina ( talk) 20:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Tree That Owns Itself has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dyrehaven (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Falun Gong, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Request for Sanctions against Bloodofox for Disruptive Editing, Activism and PA. Thank you.) HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 02:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Bloodofox. I have closed the AE request regarding you, with remedies including the following logged warning:
All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views.
While AGF is not a suicide pact and there may be times when it is appropriate to point out that other editors are editing in a biased manner, it really should never be necessary to speculate as to their motives or personal views. Even where an editor is in fact pushing a religious POV, such comments can have a chilling effect on people with the same views who edit constructively. So focus on content, or if necessary on conduct, but not on contributor.
I wish you a happy <relevant winter holiday here>. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 02:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hello BloodofFox, I know we have had our differences and spats. I just want you to know no hard feelings. I have been working on a wide variety of articles lately with some pertaining to folklore. Specifically I have been working on the article on the Fearsome critter the Hidebehind, via a separate userspace. If you are interested in helping with that I can give you the link. Also I was looking over the Baba Yaga article and have come across some information that might help you when you get around to expanding it. Some of the articles on Baba Yaga are more complete on other foreign language Wikipiedias such as the French and Russian articles. Paleface Jack ( talk) 01:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi bloodofox. FYI, you're mentioned quite a few times at WP:AE#Appeal by HollerithPunchCard. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
also Pre-RfC stage info:
|
---|
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. |
This intimation / input request is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Comparative mythology or talk page there of. Bookku ( talk) 04:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsvartnir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Jontesta ( talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox,
You're one of our resident folklorists on this site, so I thought I'd come to you with a question I have.
I was wondering if you knew of any studies - medieval, folkloristic, or otherwise - that focus on the function of claims found in texts about myths/legends like this : "And you can see this object/place that was involved in this great mythical/legendary event still today".
Thank you for any responses you might have!-- Ermenrich ( talk) 17:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Ýdalir has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
. Dots321 ( talk) 04:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha! The "Snooky" line is based on an April Fools Day prank. Look at the date. -- tronvillain ( talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC) tronvillain ( talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello BoF, Just wanted to apologize for not getting to you sooner and explain myself. The reason I haven't get back to your question sooner is this, I have been very busy working on a college film project of mine that is due this week and I haven't been on here because of that. I still need to finish this project so it might take longer for me to respond. The other reason being that I don't get any notifications on people replying to my comments on the noticeboard so I might not have seen anything. What I meant by "name calling" is making claims that users (including myself) are threatening you even though I and several others have explained that we were not threatening, merely warning. Looking back I probably should have said Undue Claims rather than name calling. That's all I was meaning. Hopefully that answers your question.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 19:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello BoF. I was dismayed by your high-handed dismissal of my additions to the page ‘Warg’. The article as it stood presented the Warg as simply a type of wolf featuring in Scandinavian mythology, with no mention of outlawry. I share your joy in Wikipedia and likewise your joy in Germanic mythology and Indo-European studies and so was delighted to come across the Warg page, knowing that I could contribute material from the Gerstein paper in ‘Myth in Indo-European Antiquity’ which - as I implied in my edit - seems to me to contain a wealth of fascinating information. I’m sorry if I departed from the ‘encyclopaedic tone’ in praising the article - which, I grant you, was probably out of order - but is that really grounds for such blanket condemnation ? I had taken considerable pains to weave the information from the Gerstein paper into the fabric of Wikipedia with a variety of links to other matters of interest e.g. ‘Homo Sacer’ and ‘Feldgeister’. I find myself wondering if you take exception to Gerstein’s presentation of evidence of sinister / negative aspects of Norse deities considered in relation to the Warg. Are you a follower of Asatru : do you consider negative portrayals of gods in the Germanic pantheon to be disrespectful, or even blasphemous? Surely the mythological texts themselves include such negative portrayals : what about Lokasenna ?
Looking into that "Bobo" section of Cryptid whales, I think I've found enough on "Bobo/The Old Man of Monterey Bay" to justify removing it from the article (essentially nothing seems to support describing it as a whale), but also enough to potentially create an article on the creature as a piece of local folklore. I'll see what I can piece together and see what you think. -- tronvillain ( talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I considered leaving your 12-pound gorilla factoid in place, as I'm sure it would eventually citogenicize its way into a reliable source and turn Beaman Monster into one of the more interesting cryptid stories. – dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw you thanked me for my edit on the article "Yahweh". I actually wrote quite a lengthy explanation for that edit on the talk page for the user I was reverting. I probably wrote way too much, but I thought I would let you know just in case you might find my explanation interesting. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tribe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Primitive, State and Brill ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to see you get dragged into this Ayurveda thing. There are some editors apparently really attached to that statement simply because it's often repeated, as opposed to the well established existing antiquity of the practice. -- tronvillain ( talk) 20:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
As you've probably noticed, the RfC finally closed in favour of a disambiguation page. I'm not entirely sure about keeping the Partridge Creek monster on there, but it seems to fit the definition pretty exactly and have more general notability than the other "living dinosaurs" out of A Living Dinosaur? (the last of which is now at AfD). Anyway, I'm curious to see if you think it needs any tweaks. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
can i use this source? https://books.google.com/books?id=dG2sBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT746&lpg=PT746&dq=lake+koskol&source=bl&ots=HxdNXP4flE&sig=RUkQU0-YN7O03hdleYAi3JkPh14&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtr6msu5zcAhUnHDQIHfKhC6AQ6AEIejAN#v=onepage&q=lake%20koskol&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
For the Lake koskol Monster. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Bloodofox, you had not added a Category:Burmese folklore to the Burmese gray wild dog article. You added a red link category which you were not planning on creating. Check its history. Dimadick ( talk) 06:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
People don't seem to send barnstars much these days! But here's one from me :-) Thanks for a lot of hard work bringing a scholarly edge to Old Norse topics over the years. Alarichall ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC) |
I don't think so, myth (if is alive) is a part of theology; in this case, a theology of Slavic Native Faith. In this light, it should be in Category:Slavic paganism and it should contain this information in lead. -- Wojsław Brożyna ( talk) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Recently cleaned up, and something you may want to put on your watchlist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rusalka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samodiva ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I recently rewrote the article Brownie (folklore) and have nominated it for "Good Article" status. I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing it, based on your keen interest in and knowledge of folklore. I do not foresee many problems with this article, but you have been around here longer than I have and I figured you might have some helpful suggestions. I noticed your statement on your userpage that you are no longer involved in the Good Article process, so, if you do not have time to review it, that is perfectly fine. I just thought I would go ahead and ask anyway.
I also wanted to note that I did see your suggestion on my user talk page and that I have not forgotten about it. I started to draft an essay on the subject, but I have not written very much, nor have I saved it on the site yet. I do not usually write essays and usually focus on writing articles, but, since this is a subject I deal with frequently and which relates to many of the issues I have frequently encountered here on Wikipedia, I think that writing an essay for this particular issue would be beneficial. I will let you know once I have something written worth showing to you. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Somehow the category Cryptozoology hadn't been a subset of the category Pseudoscience since May. Might be worth keeping an eye on. -- tronvillain ( talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Editor of the Week | |
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your continuous efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Alarichall submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
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}}
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bloodfox's Own Work |
Bloodofox |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning August 19,2018 |
Active since 2005 creating articles and curating material about Old Norse mythology, related topics and folklore. Hard work on templates, categories, naming, and redirecting. Keeps irrelevant, unsourced and subtrivial material out of our articles. Bloodofox has worked hard to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of Cryptozoology and related pages distinguish clearly between scientific zoology and folklore/conspiracy theory. Bloodofox spends time undoing things to sustain the quality of Wikipedia while not discouraging good faith contributions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore member, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies member, Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture member |
Recognized for |
over a decade of active participation |
Notable work |
Improving articles about indigenous beliefs, practices, culture, and values of the Germanic peoples |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7 ☎ 15:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I find it ironic that I was Editor of the Week before you, considering you have been doing this for thirteen years and I have only been doing it for just under two. Then again, the "Editor of the Week" award has only been going on since January 2013 and it sounds like you were more active during the early years of your time here than you are currently, which might help explain that apparent paradox. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 22:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It is clear that your constant and incessant raising of list of List of cryptids for deletion by the back door (with multiple merge proposals taking place over months, anbd multiple boards) is banging to exasperate other eds. This is beginning to enter the realms of wp:tendentious editing. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
In addition stop commenting on eds on article talk pages, this is not what they are for. Nor should you assume you know what motivates objections to your suggestions, this is a borderline adhomenim and may well violate wp:nap. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
As requested There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox, I noticed your efforts to clean up cryptozoology on Wikipedia. While this doesn't exactly fit the problems you've found with cryptozoologists and folklore, parts of the article on the extinct Elasmotherium appears to have been hijacked by the theory that the create survived to historical times and is reflected in stories about unicorns, etc. I refer specifically to Elasmotherium#Possible historical witnesses. I am not really very well trained in the topic, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention to see what you think should be done about it. For instance, it's rather odd that the article nowhere states when mainstream science believes Elasmotherium went extinct.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bloodofox. Congratulations on being made Editor of the Week. That one was certainly well deserved. I've given some thought to the earlier discussion at my talk page regarding changes at Category:Germanic peoples. As you said back then, Category:Germanic tribes is indeed too narrow to cover all the articles currently contained at that category, while Category:Germanic tribal groups is a quite unnatural term. I'm contemplating merging both of these categories into an all-encompassing Category:Historical Germanic peoples, which would be a subcategory of Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe. Would that be a better solution? Krakkos ( talk) 13:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Týr, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brill, Garm and Gothic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
why did you remove the infobox i added? Drake 567 ( talk) 09:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems like folklore written as something real: Ghost Ship of Northumberland Strait. If you have sources, drop them on the Talk page, and I'll get to it when I get to it ; ). Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to get your opinion on a closed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Theosophy a Religion? It has me for delete, a "not notable but keep", a "keep with no restriction on future merging or other refactoring", a "keep or merge to Theosophy" and a keep. I'm thinking of trying a bold merge given that the author never even participated in the deletion discussion, but I'm not wrong in thinking that nothing there really establishes notability, right? -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bloodofox. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Bloodofox! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hey there Bloodofox,
I'm fairly new to wikipedia. So I apologize if this isn't the best way to get in contact with you, but I was really curious about your recent edit to the Muspelheim page. I'm a student editor for the page, and based on my research. A good bit of the information there was fairly accurate. Has new information come to light or is a total rewrite just necessary? I just wanted to make sure I'm not adding bad information when I do contribute. Rvayyy ( talk) 15:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Krakkos emptied and redirected two categories on July 1: Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies and Ancient Germanic history and culture. I have done my best to repair the damage; I found one Scandinavian studies scholar who had been wrongly placed in the Old Norse category, and I changed around the subcategorization with reference to archaeology. But the religion material appears to have already been removed from the history and culture category, and there may be other problems that need resolving with reference to that category. Could you please look at the categorization in that latter area and fix anything I haven't fixed, or have fixed wrongly? Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
OK [12], from wp:npa "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing; see that policy for more detail.)". Slatersteven ( talk) 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No one is coordinating [13], Please AGF. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi bloodofox,
I made intensive about the alledged mural. I guess you mean the Hamburg-mural painting.
There is no internet-reference to the mural. Even if it existed, it does not mean any evidence for the name black sun.
It is proven that the name "black sun" was only used 50 years after the end of the NS-era. There are several German sources which state this! Especially the official Wewelsburg museum publications.
Furthermore the statements about the original sun-weel incrustation are not very acurate.
I would be greally reateful if you would leave the corrected version.
Greetings!
Please read WP:ROPE. A good strategy for dealing with persistent bad editing can be to pull your thumbs from the dike and walk away. Once the flood gets deep enough, some other editors will come along and clean up the mess. Moreover, if you give the bad editing a chance to flourish, it will become really obvious and thus, easier to convince people that it needs to be fixed. You risk getting overheated in your defense of Wikipedia and could get sanctioned for how you react to people. Please avoid falling into that trap, which has nailed many otherwise good editors over the years. Jehochman Talk 03:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I was accused of deliberately deleting … something, so I'll reply here. Please don't use terms like conflating if we are going to chat about this, it just seems loaded and dismissive. Some cryptids deserve articles or mention based on fact and I haven't even begun to make my mind up about this one, I'm interested in edge cases and want deeper insight than the formulation cryptozoology = pseudoscience = cryptozoology. Classifying local knowledge as folklore suggests to me that advancing this discussion with a culturally common frame of reference may be difficult, so I'm happy to leave it at that. However, you took the time to reply and air your view, so I wanted to do you the same courtesy. Best regards for the new year, cygnis insignis 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Before and After. You might want add it to your watchlist. Not that you need more articles on your plate ; ) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
At the DRV and AfD discussion on Dingonek you've probably been making it harder for people who agree with you than anything. It seems like you have a lot of passion for the area, but a number of comments have been, or at least virged, on being personal attacks. My understanding is that you are strong contributor elsewhere. I know that we can all get riled over things but I'd suggest that toning it down a bit might be the best way forward. Take this with a grain of salt and please realize I'm honestly trying to help. In all cases, best of luck. Hobit ( talk) 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bloodofox. I wonder if you couldn't give a look through the contributions of User:Xactnorge. He has been making strange additions to various articles, taking ancient and medieval sources that equate various peoples, gods, concepts, etc, literally and often adding the info to articles in which they are not relevant. For example, he has been trying to add the equation of the Getae with the Goths to various articles, and I just removed a bunch of strange information equating Thor and Heimdall with various figures from Sif. I've reversed a number of his additions, but I suspect that an actual expert on Norse mythology should have a look through as well.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox! I just wanted to make you aware of what may be some questionable sources used in the Steller's sea cow article under the section "Later reported sightings". Willy Ley and some books with "Cryptozoology" in the title appear there.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norse cosmology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox,
I was wondering if you might check out the "Cultural signifance" section of Irish elk. It looks like a bunch of highly outdated sources and possible OR and synth to me, particularly the "folklore" part.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. At
this move log entry, you wrote moved page
Aarne–Thompson classification system to
Aarne–Thompson classification systems (The article seems to have been under the impression that there is one system, but there are in fact two.
The current article seems to describe just one system: The Aarne–Thompson classification system ... is an index ... . The system is named after its creators ... . The system understands folktales as ... . The system is an essential tool for folklorists. ...
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the singular form is the correct title. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 08:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Anglo-Saxon paganism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
16:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Germanic pagan practices. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Death in Germanic mythology has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Germanic pagan practices. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
17:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Woman in Black (supernatural) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newly-minted article has some issues. Any folklore sources you can recommend or can add to it would be appreciated. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Bloodofox, do you remember me? I was editing articles about Norse myths on Croatian Wikipedia, and I'm grateful to you because your edits helped a lot to me. Odin's grandpa, Bölþorn, is one of my favourite jotnar, maybe because he has an interesting name, although we will never know why he was named such. Thank you for finishing his article. :) Hoping you are well! Wish you a beautiful summer. - Miha ( talk) 09:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The books which I cited on mapinguari were written by degree-holding zoologists, and many of them are used elsewhere on Wikipedia for other articles. Cryptozoology is not a subject which attracts much mainstream attention, so you're not likely to find many "academic" sources for information. Then again, having said that, the two articles by David Oren which I cited come from Edentata, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by IUCN. As you cannot possibly argue against their value as reliable and academic sources, I'm not really sure what sort of sources you expect to be added. Did you even bother to check my sources? I also made sure to add the words "allegedly," "supposedly," etc. to everything stated about the mapinguari and its claimed eyewitness.
The cryptozoology articles are already full of unsourced, blatantly incorrent information, and cannot be improved if your obstructive behaviour continues. Also, you failed to remove the notice requesting that the page be re-written: since you have undone my rewriting, you should put the notice back on the page. Thank you.
Just as I went to post this, I noticed that you replaced the WikiProject Cryptozoology banner with a banner for WikiProject Folklore (You have also, for some reason, gutted the article's lead and removed the lead image.) The point of cryptozoology, and what makes it distinct from any study of purely mythical creatures, is that there is real scientific debate over whether its subjects are real or not, and what they might be if they are real. Insisting that this is pure folklore as opposed to cryptozoology is insinuating that the Indians and rubber-tappers who claim this is an actual animal are all liars. Furthermore, if you regard the article as folkloric in nature, why on earth do you want academic zoological sources?
"Juma" is mentioned in Oren's peer-reviewed article, which you for some reason regard as less reliable than a newspaper article. -- Bradypus Tamias ( talk) 22:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mapinguari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siren ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that a Wikimedia image you contributed appears as figure 7 here. Nice job! Alarichall ( talk) 19:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Am I supposed to understand your name as Blood of Ox or Blood of Fox? Toad02 ( talk) 20:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
From the text, it's pretty clear it's reports that were made to either the Department of Conservation and Land Management (a government department in Western Australia) or the Mystery Animal Research Centre of Australia (perhaps sounds dubious, but the article is using data published by Conservation Science Western Australia Journal, which is a government owned journal if I'm reading correctly, so I don't think there's any Reliable Source/Verifiability problem here).
"Purported" has multiple similar definitions in dictionaries, but includes
to pretend to be or to do something, especially in a way that is not easy to believe
Cambridge English Dictionary which is a pretty non-NPOV connotation. "Claimed" is probably equally fine as "reported", both just mean the person told someone that's what happened. They said they saw a Thylacine, they claimed they saw a Thylacine, they reported they saw a Thylacine - these all sound pretty equivalent to me. Like, everyone can agree they said it, regardless of whether they think the person saying it is telling the truth, lying, or just mistaken. For what it's worth, the source uses "report" Wily D 18:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aarne-Thompson-Uther Index, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Death in Germanic mythology. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
PPEMES (
talk)
17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seeress (Germanic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ganna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
We have had many disagreements over the years, but I wanted you to know that I respect you for what you do. You have high standards for content and you try to hold articles on Wikipedia to those standards. Over the course of your time here, you have made many excellent contributions to articles on Norse mythology and folklore. More recently, you have done excellent work in trying to combat the POV-pushing of supporters of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. I think your contributions warrant some appreciation, so I am giving you this barnstar. — Katolophyromai ( talk) 01:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Svartur Völva Death Curse Barnstar
I award this Barnstar to Bloodofox for their bravery in facing the Svartur Völva Death Curse. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC) |
Hey, I made a bold edit on the Ozark Howler article, and wanted your opinion as you have edited this area. From 2019, the article has been highjacked by fringe proponents. Before I reverted this was the article [16]. There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources that discuss this subject. It was apparently a cryptozoological hoax that seems to have fooled many in the fringe communities. Is the article worth keeping? There is a serious lack of reliable sources on the topic. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to ask you what parts of my edit, excluding the speficication of the stanzasa, which I reverted in my second edit, did you refer to as misinformation. I added Bellows' opinion on the two stanzas and added his translation of the others. Eladabudi ( talk) 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Eladabudi ( talk) 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Bloodofox, I see that you recently deleted one of my previous edits on the article Phoenix (folklore) by considering my change a WP:RS fail. I respect your commitment to Wikipedia but the source I added has been used as a reliable footnote on Wikipedia before. In fact the people who translated the the book which the link was attached to even have their own Wikipedia articles dedicated to them (see Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer). Also the original reference was linked to a not very notable website containing the information, however if you look at the new version I made, it is linked to Google Books. It would be nice if you let me bring back the edit or if you change it yourself. Any rewording can be done if you please. One more thing to add, it's funny that in the section above you already had a discussion about a Gnostic-related subject with the Odin's eye article. Maybe that means you think my edit was also related to the website titled Gnostic Warrior which seems to be an unreliable source, nevertheless that website does not own the term Gnostic. Gnosticism was a religion that originated in the Middle East during the Christian age, not having any ownership to the last-mentioned. Suitably it is has been confused with the term agnosticism as well. I'm telling you this because you might not know what the religion is by thinking I am using scripture from Christianity or Judaism which are not the same as Gnosticism. If you really want to see proof that the pheonix is mentioned in its literature get this book here or read the online version here, if you feel like doing all the research. No it is not another interpretation of the word chol. The Gnostic Bible is not the same bible that is used by Christians and Jews. I did not mean to take the references you removed from the Odin's eye article and put them in my section on this page, that happened automatically. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. Prana1111 ( talk) 01:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Have you seen the relatively new article
Odin's eye? Looks like there's a lot of questionable stuff there to me, check out Independent scholar Moe Bedard
[1]. believes that there is correlation between Odin's one eye and the Egyptian symbol, the ‘
The Eye of Horus’. The Eye of Horus, also referred to as Wedjat, was a symbol of protection, royalty, power and health.
[2] Horus loses his eye in battle with his usurping uncle, Seth however it is recovered and restored, also symbolising new life. This act restores the Egyptian line of succession, also symbolises new life and new beginnings. Both the lost eyes of Odin and Horus represent sacrifice, healing and restoration. While Horus offers his eye for the resurrection of his father, Odin offers his eye to protect his people from the impending Ragnarok, the prophetic destruction of his home, Asgard lead by Surt.
--
Ermenrich (
talk)
14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox,
Someone has just translated the German page for Continental Germanic Mythology, which adds a lot of new content. Unfortunately, none of it is sourced inline (a problem I often see with articles on German Wikipedia and a reason I've always been reluctant to edit there). Since you're sort of our resident expert on the subject I was hoping you might have a look. I'm more of a heroic legends kind of guy (and one day I'll actually write an article about them!).-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.
![]() | This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out. |
==
Emicho's Avenger ( talk) 01:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Trout Lake Monster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks to be another local legend written as if WP considers it could be real. I’ll get to it eventually, but you may want to review it sooner. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Io, Saturnalia! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ― Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Certain users are advocating the deletion of Category:Early Germanic philosophy because it has few entries. The category was recently created, and contains only Hávamál and Sigrdrífumál. Are you aware of additional articles that are relevant to the category? Early Germanic philosophy is largely based upon the chapter Ideals and Patterns of Thought (pp. 153-166) from the book The Germanic People (1960) by Francis Owen. Are you aware of additional sources covering this interesting subject? Might there be more suitable titles than "Early Germanic philosophy" for this category? Wishing you a happy Yule. Krakkos ( talk) 17:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Bishzilla is sad now. Little user's questions make sense. But is very handsome monster! [Bishzilla always has a soft spot for those.] bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British big cats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British folklore ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This new user does not seem to understand how categories work. He inserts Jersey Devil in Category:Devils, for example, Scylla in Category:Succubi, or creates a Category:Phoenix birds with one entry. Or this: [19]. All this seems dubious to me.
Since you are involved with folklore, maybe you know where to find users who know about mythology. I tried the portal, but that is old. And there does not seem to be a project. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Saw this and thought of you often having quite the opposite experience : ) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello BloodofFox, Just thought I'd tell you this so that we are on the same page. Although we have but heads more than once, I saw that you joined WikiProject Cryptozoology and your goals for the project. And I want to let you know that I appreciate the changes you made to the main page. I had an idea that I've never had the time to discuss this but With said articles I fond it interesting that none of the fringe theories have been discusses on eaxh said "cryptid". What I mean by this is that the pseudoscientists so called theories on whatever the topic is are noteworth enough to be included unless the source is unreliable forum based. My idea with this is have it in "theories" section where we have coverage of pseudoscience and science being written in a neutral objective way that counts within the boundaries of coverage on Wikipiedia. This would be fascinating to see from a readers perspective as it is an alternate theory that is never acknowledged because of the limits of Fringe. This can always change since I am currently swamped with stuff on and off Wikipiedia. But I wanted to mention it before I forgot. Happy editing!-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let you know when my workload starts to lighten, looking forward to working together.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 01:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
In Article they translate troll as Fiends
also goblins idea inspired by trows and trolls
أبو السعد 22 ( talk) 20:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British big cats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British folklore ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Hypothetical civilizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 09:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox, I just stumbled across the the article Regnator omnium deus. It has no in-line citations and seems to be making a comparison between Tacitus and the Edda that appears completely unfounded without some explanation. There are sources listed below and it's possible that the connection is based on the often completely wild speculations of Otto Höfler, but without access to Simek's text I can't say. I was wondering if you might have a look, anyway.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You claim that my reversion of Loveland Frog was "unexplained", but if you'd bothered to look at the talk page, you'd see that I have given an argument supporting inclusion of the image. Your deletion comes off as unsupported. -- Qualiesin ( talk) 17:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
The infobox I have created has accurate information regarding the deity Thor. Sure, not many have heard of Jayanta. Jayanta is the son of Indra as Thor is the son of Odin. Odin and Indra is the kind of the Devas while Odin is the king of the Æsir.
Just because of this, please do not revert my edit. It has other useful info of who Thor's wife is and parentage, etc.
Thank you, Leornendeealdenglisc ( talk) 20:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 11:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to alert all current editors. I'm self-alerted for all DS at the top of my talkpage. Thanks for your help. Did you see my edits to Society of Classical Poets? It hardly warrants an article - the only notable thing is the hoax Inaugural address, but that's pretty interesting and was well covered. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I submitted (well, am about to submit) an arbitration enforcement request regarding your recent conduct on Falun Gong-related pages. It will be here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the Wee Flea is a WP:RS fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 老坛陈醋 ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at this article because I know you have tried to improve it before. Mass content has been added about a supposed "vile vortex" but the content looks very unreliable to me. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my invalid edits to the overview section of the Asgard article. I have edited the part of information regarding the Nine Worlds. However, I have dared to resubmit my edits about the fate of Asgard in Ragnarok, as well as mentioning that it consisted of smaller lands. I have provided references for this information and I hope you find them valid and relevant enough to leave this part of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yours.kkuznets ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I was responding to the lack of consensus. Put the box back until consensus is reached. That is the expected behavior. I came to the conversation as a disinterested editor. That was my judgement. Hash it out then edit. I will becsaying the same on that talk page less directly. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Bloodofox: You presented an interesting point: "Irrelevant, Shen Yun and the rest of the new religious movement is based out of the US, where they face no such persecution and actively lobby the US government" So, why did not you delete the sentence in the second paragraph: "where the Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be an "anti-society cult""? If this sentence is allowed, it is also allowed to present more detail about Chinese government and Falun Gong in this page. Also, you said Shen Yun is based on US, so it is okay to add some comments from US government on Shen Yun, right? Please answer two questions separately, thanks! Sky-Dream ( talk) 03:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I didnt want to clutter the talk page but your assertion that "Scholars use the phrase new religious movement for what is coloquially referred to as a cult.” isn't accurate... They aren’t synonyms or anything close. Rastafarianism, Mormonism, and the Baháʼí Faith are all NRMs that are very far from what we mean when we say cult. This doesn't mean that some NRMs aren’t cults and vice versa, but most aren’t. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
For your decade’s worth of contributions regarding Germanic mythology. Karaeng Matoaya ( talk) 16:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC) |
I think you want to change "as you Blue Canoe doing above" to "as you see Blue Canoe doing above", or something like that. Notrium ( talk) 22:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just tried to find where Blue Canoe has used wording like "left wing media organizations", and couldn't find it. Maybe you could be more specific in your message? Notrium ( talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orang Pendek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malay and Malaysian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at this. The user who created the article recently reverted my edits and added Dinsdale own book as a source to the article many times. He seems to be wanting to argue that Dinsdale actually captured the loch ness monster on film. In reality the footage he took has been dismissed by experts as a boat. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but the article reads as pro-fringe. What do you think the best thing to do with this article is? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Just in case you had any helpful advice to share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that you are deleting the edits that I am being doing on the Wikipedia pages which needed thorough restructuring.
I was adding the relevant citations and was in the middle of it, all of a sudden all the changes were being removed.
That means you are discouraging to add any information to enrich this platform, without any valid reason? If you have something to add in a constructive way, I am open to it, but removing each and every edits without any reason is not acceptable.
You have deleted more than 6000 characters from a page and contributed zero character in it, deleting a content based on its classification/ categorisation doesn't contribute anyway in deleting the contents from the page. It is strange to note that how coining something as pseudo-science can be relevant to remove a piece of information. Are you accusing me that I am promoting pseudo science, or any statement gives any such promotional motif. Then the category crypto-zoology shouldn't exist in Wikipedia, then being an administrator of Wikipedia you are accusing Wikipedia to promote psuedo-science, which sounds ridiculous.
So, please don't abuse your status by removing the whole content without substantial justification, or providing relevant citation.
And I will definitely mail this anomaly to relevant Wikipedia authority. -- AranyaPathak ( talk) 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Please site some relevant cultural anthropology texts/ monographs before changing the category from crypto-zoology to folklore, it is not a scholarly practice.
For you consideration, practicing Scientism is equally reprehensible like pseudo-science, which is not a scientific practice, pseudo-science and Scientism are equally distant from science
A sober behavior is expected from a scientifically oriented person, cavalier attitude is not expected.
It definitely proves that you have direct reason to act one these kinds of pages.
Science practices value neutrality, and in the domain of knowledge a degree of disinterestedness is expected.
Hence, kindly do consider.
-- AranyaPathak ( talk) 20:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
curprev 18:26, 21 July 2020 Bloodofox talk contribs 1,003 bytes -1,675 - Heuvelmans is a fringe source, this is not an improvement, article needs to be rewritten from scratch with reliable sources undo/thank
PLease refer to /info/en/?search=Bernard_Heuvelmans
-- AranyaPathak ( talk) 20:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you are the only person in this world, who have some doubt that cryptozoology is a psuedoscience.
First time in my life I got to know that someone might think cryptozoology as a discipline of science.
without reference, source and citation no one can change the content based on personal preference, it is strictly against Wikipedia norms, and also outside any scholarly/ academic norms and conventions and there lies the problem. Rule 6. Cite Cite Cite ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia)
Why you are deliberately excluding entries and vandalizing all cryptozoological pages, with personal agenda, and privileged position.
Its better you contribute in folklore. If you have any target to fulfill in folklore category, why don't you work on it, rather than vandalizing other cryptozoological entries, and populate the folklore category, dont try to smuggle entry from a different category, this practice is alien to any academic site.
And also please provide relevant citation on "Mongoloian folklore" related to Alamas
Please try to comprehend this is a formal problem, not a substantial one.
-- AranyaPathak ( talk) 07:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "
Appealing my topic ban". Thank you. —
Newslinger
talk
06:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
you may not make any reverts, subject to the usual exceptions, on Falun Gong
You have been sanctioned for edit warring on Falun Gong.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an
uninvolved administrator under the authority of the
Arbitration Committee's decision at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the
log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the
banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be
blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Allerseelen (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ravenswing 09:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
AfD in the usual place Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't think my comment belonged on ANI so I'll just share it here considering what you shared there. A few months back I helped a friend install and setup software to block Youtube ads. The reason he needed it was that he noticed that her little girls were spammed with problematic ads. He didn't know what it was but he did mention that some ads were from the ET. I then informed him on what ET really was and expressed my surprise that such content is legal to broadcast to Canadians via Youtube. These were apparently standard sponsored ads that could appear in association to any video, not because the girls were on a particular channel. Anyway, that's the story... — Paleo Neonate – 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, – Joe ( talk) 09:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The case request "Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution" that you were a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request.
The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
In case you are still interested in deleting it: list was restored per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10 § List of superstitions. Happy editing, Paradoctor ( talk)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Shen Yun, you may be
blocked from editing. You're advised to revert source removals done against earlier WP:CON
Berehinia (
talk)
03:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Rowsell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rowsell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ffranc ( talk) 09:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Fox |
For using blood of ox, rather than that of fox. Red Panda 25 19:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
I don't get it? Why did you delete out of top of the article such an important data as the origin place / folklore / tradition of Krampus following St. Nicholas folklore had strong tradition and popularity lasting for several centuries such significant and long folklore tradition in countries as Austria, Slovenia, Bavaria (very very strong and long traditon); North Italy, Czech Republic and Hungary are right behind... There is million sources out there. The place of origin or common practice is a standard and basic information for every historical wiki article. How could an average and ignorant reader from Africa, Asia or America know where character (folklore) comes from? Alpine town folklore is such a general term, should be more specific. Meanwhile, no one in United States didn't even know what or who Krampus was until 6,7 years when Hollywood started making Krampus movies one after another. Would be great if you put those folklore countries information back in top of the article. Sportomanokin ( talk) 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Are Fakelore stories and characters within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore? Should I tag them for the Project or not? Dimadick ( talk) 15:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Natalis soli invicto! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello User:Bloodofox, thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, contested page moves require a discussion to be opened on the talk page. The article is about cross necklaces and the sources make reference to this term, while none make reference to cross pendants. If you still think the article should be moved, you are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page, though I most certainly will be opposing the move per WP:COMMONNAME, among other reasons. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mjölnir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Slavonic.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope the article Strängnäs stone is interesting for you.-- Berig ( talk) 08:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stith Thompson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox! I'm putting together at least a stub on Germanic heroic legend (currently a redirect to Alliterative verse) at my sandbox. Feel free to contribute if you have time! User:Ermenrich/sandbox-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Greetings and Salutations,
I noticed your edits on "Comparative Mythology", and wanted your opinion and/or insight on adding yet another section involving: "Afterlife/ life after death, other realms/ planes of existence, and/or eternal oblivion". Im a mere basic scholar at best (more of a hobbyist actually), when it comes to this field of study.
I'm willing to put forward some time and effort in regards to this, but possibly your help and/or assistance in making it more complete, etc would prove beneficial to the article as a whole. Regards ~ Gizziiusa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vanir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jan de Vries.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Bloodofox ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. So, I'm checking my watchlist as usual today, making edits here, reverting the usual tomofoolery there. I make what would be a typical edit ( here), and next thing I know I am blocked from editing for 24 hours ( [20]). After asking the admin—whose name I did not recognize—what on earth was going on, the admin informed me that last year the same admin had apparently decided myself and several others would be added to a 0 revert rule list without expiration ( here's the list). The admin did not justify this decision, but it was apparently due to some kind of arbcom decision about a sanction (which I was not at all involved in). Again, this was done without any kind of discussion and Falun Gong has a 1 RR rule that I have long been aware of. Apparently the admin had left me a form note on my talk page about it last year, which I hadn't noticed (or I would have immediately appealed it and you wouldn't be reading this right now). This is arbitrary, unjustified, and pointless. Can I get an unblock? :bloodofox: ( talk) 04:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
From WP:REMOVED: "If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its content." You are welcome to make your own appeal at Arbcom once the block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
[21] - not sure why legends and folklore are being categorized as cryptids, on a massive scale. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately Guerillero hasn't been online since I posted above. Sorry, Guerillero, but if I wait any longer it'll become progressively less meaningful to unblock. Bloodofox, you have been unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
Hi, Bloodofox. I'd like to point out that two paragraphs which you seemed have written in the "Theories" section of Æsir–Vanir War have recently been removed. I don't have access to the book which was quoted, so I can't really revert the edit, but it seems like it needs to be reverted. The anonymous user left an edit summary. Eladabudi ( talk) 20:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox! I've finally published Germanic heroic legend and am turning my attention to the list of figures you suggested. I wonder if you might be able to help/have any suggestions for sources to find 1) the etymologies of some of the names and 2) the proposed historical (or non-historical) origins of some of the figures. I have Gillespie, but he only covers names appearing in Middle High German and not always the etymology or proposed origins. I'm putting the new list article together at User:Ermenrich/sandbox.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
In this edit you messed up a BLP article with serious POV pushing, most notably by labeling an individual a "conspiracy theorist" without obtaining any consensus in advance. For the matter, the discussion that followed at Talk:JP Sears#RFC on conspiracy theorist in lead re-affirmed with a clear majority that this term shouldn't be used in the lead (or at all). It is frightening to think how many articles such "Rewrite [more like "Ruining"] article" one could make. While you are entitled to your own opinions, conspiratorial or not, you cannot dictate who a person is on his biography article in such a way. Use the talk page next time, please. Bezrat ( talk) 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Bloodofox, I have started an RfC on the article Goths that may be of interest to you, see Talk:Goths#RfC.-- Berig ( talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox. Do you mind looking at the Jonathan Downes article? There have been problems with it from the very beginning. I just removed a bunch of promotional sources to blogs. Is he a notable cryptozoologist? He has published a look of books on it but I cannot find any reliable references reviewing his work. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I just dipped my toe back into Wikipedia to edit The Two Babylons and who should I see on the same article a few days later but you! It reminded me of old conversations on Talk:Easter. We might not recognize each other on the street, but I hope you're doing well. - Ben ( talk) 02:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Three years ago you added a "rewrite" banner to Beast of Dean. It has had multiple edits since then - do you think the banner is still needed?— Rod talk 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you want this take to arbitration? There is no consensus for the edits you're trying to force. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 21:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You wrote:
As with any fringe-adjacent article on Wikipedia, ask yourself: Who is attempting to scrub this article? There's your answer.
The article is about a celebrity, and you are alleging that there are people out there who want to scrub to scrub the celebrity's connection to fringe theories from the article.
But!
Most people (I guess) who believe in a fringe theory would obviously be proud of a celebrity being associated with it, and would like that celebtrity endorsement to be written about on Wikipedia, not scrubbed. Only a minority of believers (I guess) would want their club of people in the know about a conspiracy to stay as exclusive as possible (so they themselves can feel more special) and would get jealous when more people know about the conspiracy, like when it would be featured on a celebrity's Wikipedia page.
So who you are talking about?
-- Distelfinck ( talk) 21:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I request that you delete this post, and if you do, then feel free to delete my reply. It is certainly a personal attack but even more clearly it is disrupting away from a topic of discussion where I think we probably agree on more than you realize (because you seem to be angry and not reading carefully). Anyway, if you keep making personal attacks I think I will act upon it, because this is going on and on, and not good for the article.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Apart from the works cited in the Goffart section, maybe this is interesting also, which is a retrospective collection:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
See e.g. the intro page 34. Articles include:
Apart from being utter nonsense, (both counter-factual, and illogical), this talk page post is purely about me [26]. It could be used as a good example of what ad hominem and "aspersions" mean. I am sure you realize that such bullying is against WP policy. I am asking you to delete it. I don't intend to answer on that talk page, because it is clearly purely disruptive, and purely intended to be disruptive, so this can cause problems on that talk page where at least some editors are trying to work constructively. Why are you so obsessed with me? What annoys you are the published sources. I am just a Wikipedia editor acting in good faith, and according to policy. An editor asked if there were objections to a proposal in an aggressive way which was clearly an "or else" proposition. My answer was short. Your behaviour towards me is aggressive and personal and inappropriate.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw, but I rolled back most of the article to its state of 2 July 2019. I've been trying to kick start things by just editing, but I definitely can't do it alone. The help of yourself and other good editors on sprucing up the sometimes quite bad state of the article in 2019 would definitely be appreciated.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sól and Dwarf.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Category:Eschatology in norse mythology. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Category:Eschatology in norse mythology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
MClay1 (
talk)
14:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the meaning of the name Sangdeboeuf?-- Berig (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been thinking for a while about our illustrations on Norse mythology. Back during the first years of WP, we had a lack of pictures and we added any pictures we could find, but nowadays we have more of pictures of archaeological finds and picture stones. Since scholarly sources prefer to use picture stones and archaeological finds as illustrations, I think that we should too. In the article Valhalla for instance, there are several pictures, but there is not a single illustration of what is usually identified as Valhalla on picture stones.-- Berig (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I found this book and this one; I suspect the are fringe but I'm not sure. Could you help me to check whether they could be used as sources? Best regards and thanks in advance.-- Carnby ( talk) 12:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Our article on Forseti includes some odd information in the lead but not the body cited to Hans Kuhn (philologist) that the name is actually a loan of Greek Poseidon, including speculation about when Greek traders might have introduced the name. Do you happen to know if this is actually what Kuhn was arguing and whether this proposal is common enough to be cited in the article lead?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
Apologies if you're getting two-notifications. I found out about DM'ing and so I deleted the original post but then I found out that talking about this publicly would be preferable as others can chime in on it so I will go with this instead. I will be referring to myself as Duploom and I have come to discuss a certain matter with you. I selected you because, based off of the edit history of the Wiki article on Eir, you seem to have a history of familiarity with the article. It's this familiarity that makes you desirable to me as I suspect information that was once available on that article is now missing and I wish to discern whether or not it was even ever there at all.
At around early 2018, when I was into the New Age, I was seeking healing and somebody recommended that I turn to Norse Gods. Naturally, with a bit of research, I turned to the one called "Eir" for assistance. Now, when I read the Wiki article on Eir, I definitely remember it being written that there was a woman who would be visited by Eir herself in her dreams. There was a footnote at the bottom of the article which you could click in order to see the woman's own website and there, you can read more about her in-dream visitations by Eir. I remember reading a bit of this. Now, some time passed, I tried to check the Version History of that Wiki article in order to try and find mention of that dream prophetess but, it's gone. I used the Internet Archive as well and I still cannot find it. You see, I am currently mentally ill, so much so that at one point, I hallucinated seeing an entire Cathedral that turned out to not exist at all and so I would like to see if anyone remembers any mention of an "Eir Dream-Prophetess."
Do you remember any such edits to the Eir article?
Regards, Duploom
Duploom ( talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Io, Saturnalia! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hold Nickar has been cut down to be about the nixie (and reference to the Hold Nickar on some TV show), but was originally created with theories of deriving from Hjaldr Hnickar, hence being originally a name of Óðinn, and being a precursor of both Santa Claus and the term "Old Nick": version by the creator, VocalIndia, who is putting up a spirited defense at ANI in a section they started, where their edits to the article are being used as both good and bad examples of their work. They themself removed most of that material while the article was at AfD, and Kleuske removed more in what is currently the latest edit, but I note the short description still says "god". I would simply redirect to the nixie article—where it's not even a See also—but the AfD was a bit of a mess. It was soft closed as delete on grounds of minimal participation after receiving only one !vote, for deletion on the grounds of being just a name for the nixie. But it was restored 8 days later after a request ( page log) and the AfD was subsequently closed as keep after belated listing at the Mythology Wikiproject and a number of !votes asserting RS. So I wonder if you could give me your view on the sources, as someone with more expertise than me. I have pinged the author since they themself cut out almost all the non-nixie material in response to the first AfD !vote (as well as Kleuske who followed up on that by removing it from the intro); I can't see any mention in that AfD of the option of redirecting, and perhaps VocalIndia would be amenable to that. If not, I think a second AfD might be procedurally required, with Wikiproject Folklore notified this time. But with folklore subjects there's always a possibility that valid sources are being discounted on an IDONTLIKEIT basis, so I'd like to get an expert opinion. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you've removed a great deal of the copy editing I've been doing today on Baba Yaga, but you may not have noticed that many errors have now been restored by you. What I've been doing is not vandalism, but correct formatting of sources, adding links, and generally preparing the article for a GAN. I've enough experience with Wikipedia editing to know what I'm doing. I will be looking at Johns (and other sources to ensure the article is properly written. In the mean time, please understand if I restore some of the corrections and additions I have been making, whilst at the same time ensuring that your positive contributions are not lost. Amitchell125 ( talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TE_by_Bloodofox
Thanks
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
23:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TE2_by_bloodofox
Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
01:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox, there is a discussion ongoing on Talk:Breidablik which you may have seen already. If you have time to help out, I think your opinion on conventions would be very valuable, whatever you reckon. Thanks! Ingwina ( talk) 07:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox. I was wondering if you had a recommendation for an intro to Norse Myth for college students. Back in the day I read Hilda Ellis Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, but that was written quite a long time ago. Is there something more recent that would be just as good (and easily available)?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
I've just become aware that for some reason we have a separate article lindworm to dragon. In my opinion lindworm (and its Norse equivalents) are just native Germanic words for dragon, but what do you think? Looking at the article, do you think a merger is in order? It's been there since 2003.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I see this is still a red link. Nice Commons category. Contains one exemplar of the houaʀ bracteate inscription, much discussed by Karl Hauck and others, and is in the news again because Lisbeth Imer et al. have interpreted another bracteate inscription as the earliest attestation of Óðinn: AP, press release from the TV2 ref cited at da:Vindelev-skatten. ( de:Schatzfund von Vindelev doesn't seem to have the story yet.) Might you or a talk-page watcher be inclined to fill the gap? (BTW Hauck is at de:Karl Hauck (Mediävist) but sv:Karl Hauck (stub), so no ILL above.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 23:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Template:Anglo-Saxon months has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Anglo-Saxon time. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Hi Bloodofox - I noticed two templates having more or less the same function and saw you made one and might be interested in giving your thoughts on the merger I've proposed. Ingwina ( talk) 20:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Tree That Owns Itself has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dyrehaven (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Falun Gong, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Request for Sanctions against Bloodofox for Disruptive Editing, Activism and PA. Thank you.) HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 02:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Bloodofox. I have closed the AE request regarding you, with remedies including the following logged warning:
All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views.
While AGF is not a suicide pact and there may be times when it is appropriate to point out that other editors are editing in a biased manner, it really should never be necessary to speculate as to their motives or personal views. Even where an editor is in fact pushing a religious POV, such comments can have a chilling effect on people with the same views who edit constructively. So focus on content, or if necessary on conduct, but not on contributor.
I wish you a happy <relevant winter holiday here>. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 02:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hello BloodofFox, I know we have had our differences and spats. I just want you to know no hard feelings. I have been working on a wide variety of articles lately with some pertaining to folklore. Specifically I have been working on the article on the Fearsome critter the Hidebehind, via a separate userspace. If you are interested in helping with that I can give you the link. Also I was looking over the Baba Yaga article and have come across some information that might help you when you get around to expanding it. Some of the articles on Baba Yaga are more complete on other foreign language Wikipiedias such as the French and Russian articles. Paleface Jack ( talk) 01:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi bloodofox. FYI, you're mentioned quite a few times at WP:AE#Appeal by HollerithPunchCard. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
also Pre-RfC stage info:
|
---|
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. |
This intimation / input request is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Comparative mythology or talk page there of. Bookku ( talk) 04:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsvartnir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Jontesta ( talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bloodofox,
You're one of our resident folklorists on this site, so I thought I'd come to you with a question I have.
I was wondering if you knew of any studies - medieval, folkloristic, or otherwise - that focus on the function of claims found in texts about myths/legends like this : "And you can see this object/place that was involved in this great mythical/legendary event still today".
Thank you for any responses you might have!-- Ermenrich ( talk) 17:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Ýdalir has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
. Dots321 ( talk) 04:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)