Web Analytics

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
User talk:Haukurth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Haukurth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • Archive 1 — July 24th 2003 - October 12th 2005
  • Archive 2 — October 12th 2005 - November 24th 2005
  • Archive 3 — November 22nd 2005 - December 29th 2005
  • Archive 4 — January 3rd 2006 - February 25th 2006
  • Archive 5 — February 26th 2006 - May 31st 2006

I don't delete comments but I sometimes move them around and write headings for them. I think it's convenient to keep archival pages but if you want to make absolutely sure that you're reading the record here just as it happened then you'll of course peruse the history.

Contents

[edit] sprotection on GWB

I did not remove the sprotected tag form GWB because I thought that Jimbo made an edict. No. I can think for myself. And I did. Too bad you disagree. I don't like that lock sign on those articles. Ever since. It is simply ridiculous and makes these articles look lousy. And please note, that I do disagree with Jimbo on certain things. But not on this one. --Ligulem 12:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate the lock sign too, I've removed it from the template once or twice but people keep reinserting it. Please help! :) Haukur 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Having good arguments does not suffice unfortunately

Not likely. I have the impression that most admins avoid this page because of all the harasement that can come with being associated as someone to close to Jimbo. And that makes it in effect impossible to protect a high profile page like that against slanderous and incorrect insertion of information. I have tried, and failed, o well. I rather spend my time with other topics. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for driving you off :-| I know you were trying to bring attention to the matter on the noticeboard. This is indeed a very sensitive and difficult article - similar to those of other living people we want to make sure that it uses good sources and isn't libelous but we also want to make sure that legitimate high-profile criticism gets through. Perhaps your version is closer to that ideal. Haukur 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It would not be an issue if other admins who watch the page would just add their 2 cents to the discussions at times, but when it comes down to two admins against two editors, it is an unresolvable discussion. WP:LIVING is clear abiout unsourced information (repeated removal is not violating 3RR), but it becomes more difficult to deal with nicely sourced but slanderous information. And this page is especially sensitive because pof Jimbo and Wikipedia and the things people hav against him. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

about: Editing Race and intelligence

I'm sure you've got good points to make but this is just too drastic a change to make in one go to the lead of a sensitive article)

- In my opinion the previous version was too drastic.

Could you enable others to express their opinions too, please wait a little and do not work as a "firewall".

cheers

--192.107.77.3 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

I stole these texts from User:Ultramarine user page. I'll remove these if necessary, pls notify the other user as well.--Constanz - Talk 13:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article about Old Norse has been modified

I have modified the article about Old Norse according to the discussion about the statement that Old East Norse is characterized by a lack of diphthongs. In principle, I have simply removed the parts of the text referring to the statement. // Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] What changed

You commented:

I don't see how anything has changed in that respect [1]

Of course something had changed. As a result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (use English)#What is 'Latin alphabet'?, the Latin alphabet article was brought to my attention, and it has:

Eth Ðð and the Runic letters thorn Þþ, and wynn Ƿƿ were added to the Old English alphabet. Eth and thorn were later replaced with 'th', and wynn with the new letter 'w'. [...] these 3 letters are no longer part of the Latin alphabet as used for English [...]

Eth, thorn and wynn are no longer part of the Latin alphabet

A vote decided that there was no consensus to use them in wikipedia (non-redirect) article names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) goes contrary to that decision. So that guideline is disputed as far as I'm concerned.

May I remind you that at your (second) sysop candidature you declared:

Our guidelines and policies are getting more numerous by the day and it's often difficult to find out if a certain special case is covered somewhere or not. This problem can be especially acute for new editors who don't know their way around. I'll take a hypothetical example.
Let's say I'm a new editor eager to contribute an article on a particular German opera. I don't know whether to write the article under the German title or an English translation of that title. I'm a conscientious editor and I want to do things right so I try to find a rule to tell me what to do. Okay, I come upon Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It tells me to use the title most recognizable to English speakers. Hmm... I'm not sure what that would be, let's see what else there is. Wikipedia:Naming conventions_(common names) tells me to use the most commonly used name. Okay, I think that would be the German name. But wait! Wikipedia:Naming conventions_(use English) seems to imply that the English translation would be preferred. Or, wait again, maybe it doesn't - it also seems to say that the most common name is preferred. I'm leaning towards the German title then. But further down the same guideline says that the use of diacritics in article titles is debated. Crap, the German title has diacritics. It even has an 'ß' in it which seems to be even more disputed. *sigh* I don't want to step right into a minefield here. But look! There's something called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas), maybe I'll finally find the answer there. Hmm, it tells me to go with the form used in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. Crap, I don't have that book :(
Rather than getting paralyzed in our jungle of (sometimes conflicting) guidelines this hypothetical editor should just Ignore All Rules and create the article under whatever name she thinks would be suitable. If it turns out that some guideline somewhere recommends a different title then it can just be changed later on. No big deal and no-one should get cross with the editor for failing to "follow the rules".

Anyway, your efforts at making rules more coherent and more approachable by the average editor were negligible. True, you didn't even complain about that in your comment quoted above. But, as you said: "If it turns out that some guideline somewhere recommends a different title then it can just be changed later on."

Note that you don't "own" the Níðhöggr/Nidhogg article. Note that wikipedia:naming conventions (which is a policy page, so in wikipedia hierarchy of policies and guidelines quite above the "norse mythology" guideline), has "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, [...]". For "the majority of English speakers" Nidhogg is more recognisable than Níðhöggr. Nobody doubts that.

Further, as explained at talk:Nidhogg, the no-consensus at the end of the renaming vote on that article was interpreted as *that it should stay where it was when the vote started* by most of the people who commented on the vote decision there, apart from you.

So,

  1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) is no good. If it can't be brought in line with wikipedia:naming conventions (use English), and, more importantly, with the wikipedia:naming conventions policy, it should go.
  2. There's consensus that Níðhöggr should be moved back to Nidhogg. If you think that is not OK, start a new WP:RM. The fact is, that if I'd started a WP:RM from Nidhogg to Níðhöggr, the vote would immediately be cancelled (I had that experience recently) because the vote should always start from the place where the article would need to be as a result of the previous vote. So, there's no other possibility, the article goes back to Nidhogg.

Further, "I've noticed you spend a very large proportion of your Wikipedia time debating and and proposing naming conventions and page moves." - so, and? I think I'm starting to get some experience in the matter. Please don't think in my place (aka: speak for yourself). Who said I would think that frustrating? Your remarks in that sense were completely off-topic. --Francis Schonken 21:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think anything has changed, surely it was common knowledge last year as well as now that thorn, eth and wynn are not used to write Modern English :) As for the article on the dragon you're of course right that I don't own it, I'd love to see more people contributing to it. I don't quite follow your reasoning as regards move requests on it but the poll we had back in the day came out with a significant majority in favor of the current title, even more so if you discount sockpuppets. Haukur 00:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P****** B***

what is your problem with the P****** B*** page, why do you keep remoning text that was there for a while ?

We don't have an article on P****** B*, it was deleted due to notability concerns. Thus I don't think an entry for him belongs at the Buri disambiguation page. If you want to get a second opinion I suggest going to WP:DRV. Haukur 12:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Message redacted - this talk page was showing up very high on Google for this person's name, probably not a good thing. Haukur 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma Supreme Court

I saw how you reverted the Oklahoma Supreme Court because you believed it contained plagiarized material. I want us to work together is solving this problem so that the knowledge on the Oklahoma Supreme Court can be available to those of us who desire to know about it. I have copied to information and tried to reword it so that it still expressed the desired information but at the same time dose not violate copyright laws. Please exam the page and if errors are found please tell me what should be changed and I will work to solve the problem. As an Oklahoman and a Wikipedian I appreciate your cooperation in this venture so that we can work to create a better information source for all. --Rougher07 9:47 (GMT) June 15, 2006

[edit] Thank you for your support

Dear Haukurth,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotect

Hi; I like the 'keys' graphic. Good choice. Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not inclined to make significant changes to the story, I was careful to make sure it was accurate. This round of editing was quite definitely prompted by the Times article, Zanimum's edit summary says so. Sure, there has been earlier activity on the template too, but there's a definite lull before it started up again. I realized that the icon might change, which is why I made a point of saying only what it was when last I checked, and it was correct at press time. I can update that information, but it doesn't change the substance of the story. Finally, this is the first I've heard of people who still prefer a banner; all of the discussion on the talk page until today was about what image to use and layout problems in various skins. --Michael Snow 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fine, but that last part is not accurate, I objected to the change from text to padlock immediately [2] and Jtdirl did as well, in no uncertain terms [3] Haukur 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't read your initial comment as a clear preference for a banner - certainly an indication that the solution was not ideal and could be improved further, but the discussion ended up focusing on choice of icon rather than banner versus icon. Jtdirl started off with a layout objection, so I scanned his comment as being mostly about that. Upon rereading, I suppose his emphasis on a written text is arguably equivalent to preferring a banner, although he also discusses other options. So I'll happily admit that when I said "all of the discussion" above, that overstated things. But the emphasis of discussion did come across as being choice of icon and layout issues. --Michael Snow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hiya, just wanted to say thanks for the work that you're doing on the Polish nobility move requests. I know that some of them are a bit more complex than most, and whichever way you do decide to rule on consensus, I wanted to say that your efforts are appreciated. :) --Elonka 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate that. Haukur 20:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page move

Sorry if I expressed myself rather graphically. I have been having internet troubles all night and probably took my anger that should have been directed against the service provider at you. I did find the conclusion you reached inexplicable.

I understand the dangers of votes being highjacked. That is not what happened in this case. A gang of people were largely responsible for tidying up the notorious mess that were royal pages on Wikipedia. That work has spanned three years. The users contacted by Martel (Is that his name? I don't know him) were not contacted because they were some sort of block vote. They were contacted simply because they were the people who had done the work on royal naming and could add to the debate insights as to the naming convention and manual of styles rules. Far from agreeing, many of those approached regularly vote different ways on issues. Recently a group of Polish contributors have been trying to drive a coach and four through WP rules on English usage, most common name and naming conventions usage to move articles to where Poles think they should be. Non-Poles have been involved in trying to bring an international perspective to these debates. Many of the pages had been unilaterally renamed by some Polish contributors in formats totally against the MoS and NCs.

You may not have understood all of that. The vote showed that other than the Poles themselves, practically no-one else agreed with their naming variants. In that page's case, the clear consensus was to put the article in a version that reflected both most common name and the agreed format in the naming conventions. Your interpretation of the results involved declaring that the Polish contributors and their unilateral naming took priority over the naming conventions, the manual of style and the contributions of people who had done three years of work to try to avoid the very mess that the Polish contributors were (unwittingly) trying to create, with native names unused internationally getting priority over names used everywhere else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in with Jtdirl, there's another complicating factor, which is that one of the Polish users is an admin, and has been (IMHO) inappropriately using his admin access to force through some of the moves. I can point to dozens of diffs of move wars where the (Polish) admin has been using his access to delete redirects and force through moves of articles from English titles to Polish titles[4]. There is also a history of other problems such as the admin using his access to unblock other Polish editors when they were banned, or using his access to protect Poland-related articles when someone else tried to change an article back to an English name (the Władysław II Jagiełło article in particular was left protected for about three months)[5]. I've been trying to address these issues in a private mediation cabal discussion without further escalating things, but it's looking like stronger steps may be needed, especially because it's proving so difficult to counter the Polish voting block, and obtain the super-majority consensus that is needed to move this large number of articles back to English titles. :/ --Elonka 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to make one thing clear: it is me who have asked for the mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader, in order to put a stop to the continuing slander I and some other Polish editors receive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish monarchs

dear Haukurth, I realized that you have done some work to check the Casimir III of Poland issue. I am guessing that you do not know the depths of these cases. Almost all Polish monarchs are at names which are in direct contravention to the naming conventions many of us have worked to make tenable and somehow systematical enough. Those Polish monarchs are at wrong locations because the so-called "Polish cabal" (I used now that term just because one of them had decided to use it to descrribe himself and his friends by it, and I follow his description, in lack of a better one) moved them half a year ago and tries to keep them there at all costs apparently. In my opinion, these are just cases where any editor knowing well the English names (Casimir, John etc) is within their rights to simply move any of these monarchs to at least somewhat more English title. I personally tried to do it some time ago - was it in late Winter or when?? - however, having immediately attacked by (certain) editors who alleged they had built a majority to put these to those Polish names and kep there (we have learned that their so-called majority consensus was one made by three Polish-ethnic editors in a remote discussion place of Wikipedia). Since then, I have been hoping a wholesale solution to the problem, but it seems to me that in any case when any such is attempted, there is the same people wanting to keep them at Polish names. Because a wholesale solution generally requires perhaps even 80% support, and because there are individual complexities involved in most cases, it seems that any general plan gets frustrated. (I have been mostly too tired to try move requestes for these.) However, seeing that there are attempts of Elonka, Jtdirl and others still trying to have them to better locations, I respect their labor. One of the problems has been that to avoid individual complexities present in building wholesale plan, a case-by-case work is needed, and it is much work. There are several dozens of these Polish monarchs. IF people have enough energy, all that is going to be gone through. Huh. However, the next problem is that a certain group of these Polish editors seem to be everywhere, whereas those who just generally work with monarch naming, are not necessarily aware of each move proposal, or do not have enough time to be present everywhere.

You have accused of canvassing. But perhaps one party only. You should look at the noticeborad of Polish-related topics, where these so-called "cabalists" post each of these move requests. It is very clear that the aid communication between that group brings their number, around ten usernames (perhaps some are socks) to all of these places. Whereas there does not exist as effective way to inform editirs who work with monarchs of other countries. They, by definition almost, are fragmented everywhere. However, consistency of naming clearly presupposes that precisely those more general views are useful in these namings. Therefore I must find it acceptable to go around to inform those more generalized editors, individually because it is difficult to find them anywhere together.

You perhaps should check whether the number of usernames you see are voting against these moves, have done any work regarding monarchs of other countries. Or shown any more general skills with English language and hostorical naming. I think very few of them actually have. One redusory factor (if you believe in weighing votes) would be to let editors of Polish ethnicity just one vote together in a vote focusing on how English generally uses a Polish name - or, analogously, give much weight to any evidentially native english-speaker.

Do I recall correctly that you are a supporter of diacritical letters in article names? Well, that's then something I disagree generally with you.

You perhaps understand the current frustration regarding the native names as article names of Polish monarchs, if you (I believe you are somehow from Scandinavia) think about a situation where a group of editors keep all Fredericks (I-VI) of Denmark and Norway, the two of Sweden and additionally the one Christian Frederick of Norway at their German name forms, "Friedrich", here in English wikipedia. There would be grounds for such: each of those were holders of German titles too, etc, and many of them were born in what we now have as Germany. But regarding those, it hopefully is self-evident that they should not be Friedrich, Fredrik or Frederik, but, in English, simply Frederick. What would you like about, for example, "the famous ruler of Iceland, king Friedrich V of Denmark and Norway"?

I just hope that you will not do anything to frustrate any of these move requests from Polish names. It has been difficult enough. I think you should rather help those who are brave enough to even unilaterally move those pages to more English-looking names. Shilkanni 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"more English-looking names"? It seems that that a foreign place/person either has an English name or does not. Olessi 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Now you have "bravely" and "unilaterally" moved articles to names you like better after a no-consensus WP:RM discussion. Furthermore you have done so in such a way that the articles can't be moved back without administrator assistance. This is just not cricket. Haukur 09:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. I don't have any strong feelings on the names of monarchs, be they Polish or Scandinavian. Haukur 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Shilkanni sums it up the situation perfectly. A lot of us put a lot of effort into trying to create cohesion into WP coverage of royalty (when I came here first, 4 years ago, it was a laughable mess. We had the Prince of Wales at Charles Windsor!!!) Unfortunately the Polish cabal have been systematically trying to ensure that Polish monarchs are treated differently, even if it makes it a nightmare then for non-Poles to use the pages about them. Trying to create a cohesive unit of articles is difficult — it has involved some compromises of nomenclature and disambiguation that not all of us are happy with, but no workable alternative can be found. It cannot work if a cabal from country decides that they will put their country's articles in a different location and to hell with the rest of Wikipedia. That is what has been happening. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep now, play nicely while I'm gone :) Haukur 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth, thank you for your input. I see you have alrady been presented with the arguments about the 'Polish cabal', I will not go into this but I have asked for mediation due to some users using this argument as 'carte blanche' for personal attacks and ignoring arguments by users who don't agree with them. I wonder if you would like to comment on behaviour of User:Shilkanni, for whom 'no consensus' on RM means apparently 'consensus for him to move the article anyway' - see Boleslav II of Poland and Boleslav I of Poland. I would revert his moves myself but then it would be a clear sign of me abusing my admin powers and trying to take control of Wikipedia again... :> As for Casimir, I think it is a telling sign that some users interpret 'controversy, ask for second opinion' as 'bah, I will move the article where I want it to be anyway', too :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The page moves have also resulted in the talk page of "Bolesław the Brave"/"Boleslav I" becoming separated. Olessi 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Bogue class aircraft carriers

Thanks for your help in moving all of the Bogue class aircraft carriers! One was overlooked. USS St. George (CVE-17) needs to be moved to HMS Pursuer (D73). Also, I forgot to bring this one up in the move, but could you move USS Altamaha (CVE-6) to HMS Battler (D18) for the same reason? Thank you! TomTheHand 23:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! Haukur 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How should we move the new Starčević page?

Hi! While the article Ante Starčević was protected, we worked on the page Ante Starčević/Requested Changes. It has become the improved version of the protected article. Now that the article is unprotected, Ante Starčević/Requested Changes should be moved to Ante Starčević. How can it be done to preserve the page history? Its talk page should be moved too. --Zmaj 09:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DreamGuy

Someone has accused DreamGuy of being in violation of sock protocol. DreamGuy will need your assisstance. Martial Law 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is no mere accusation. DreamGuy / Victrix has already been found likely to be using sockpuppets to violate the WP:3RR on the basis of a formal request for checkuser supported by a number of editors. Even more serious allegations concerning this editor have since been brought to my attention, and evidence relating to these is currently being compiled. --Centauri 00:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Having experienced DG and his alter ego I'm not in the slightest surprised that they are one and the same. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Editing the same way, in the same language, with almost identical (uniquely identical) edit summmaries. They appear on WP at the same time and disappear at the same time. At this stage it is amazing that DreamGuy has been tolerated on WP for so long. Others have been banned far earlier for far less. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and paste

The reason we don't do cut/paste is so as not to lose edit histories. This article has no edit history. I wrote it and no-one else has edited except for this reversion war. Adam 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but your original edit ended up at the title you don't prefer, right? Anyway, I've moved to your title and merged the histories. I'll post to the talk page in a minute. Haukur 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moved it back to the preference of the first major author

Sounds like a good idea, particularly as people are known to move pages in the middle of a WP:RM Survey which throws the template off and causes total confusion. But it would need to be first author or a WP:RM move. I suggest you raise in on the WP:RM talk page.

BTW when you have time have a look at the second WP:RM survey at Talk:Dokdo#Requested moves to date I don't know how the Korean faction pulled it off but they managed to get a complete WP:RM through without one of the Japanese faction or a neutral casting a vote against them! Yes and I did check the WP:RM history and it was posted on WP:RM! But I did have to spend part of the day fixing the Archives on the article, which had been edited/saved in a way which appeared to me to remove some opinions that the persons creating the archives did not like. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of Medieval Scandinavian Women

I'm looking for an expert opinion on how to name no:Ingebjørg Finnsdatter, daughter of Finn Arnesson and wife of assorted famous people. There is an article at Ingeborg of Austraat, but it needs redoing from scratch, so I'd have no qualms about turning it into a redirect. My checking on Google Books and my bookshelves suggests that her first name should be Ingibjorg, and since we refer to people as Xson, Ingibjorg Finnsdatter seems like the logical choice, or even Ingebjørg Finnsdatter. Are there any existing Medieval Scandinavian women with articles on this wiki ? What do you think ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The standardized Old Norse spelling of the name is Ingibjörg Finnsdóttir (well, strictly Ingibjǫrg Finnsdóttir but 'ö' is a widely accepted substitute for the technically problematic 'ǫ' and what we use on Wikipedia). Ingebjørg Finnsdatter is a (modern) Norwegianized form which I'd rather avoid. Embarrasingly I can't find any articles on a medieval Scandinavian woman who is known by her patronym. We have lots of modern Icelandic women, though, such as Ingibjörg Haraldsdóttir. I don't have any English language sources referring to her at hand but browsing on Google Books I notice that Lee M. Hollander mentions her as "Ingibjorg, daughter of Finn Árnason" but his system of Anglicizations is maybe a bit eccentric - he renders ǫ/ö as 'o' (Ingibjörg > Ingibjorg), drops nominative endings (Finnr > Finn), but maintains acute accents (Árnason). I bet you can find some English language source who refer to her as Ingibjorg Finnsdottir or Ingibiorg Finnsdottir if you'd prefer that, though I'd personally want to use the standardized Old Norse spelling. Haukur 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you know, there's already a stub at Ingibiorg Finnsdottir. I suppose we'll have to touch that up. Haukur 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I did finally find Þóra Magnúsdóttir and Þuríður Sturludóttir. Haukur 22:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. Makes sense. Ingibjörg Finnsdóttir it will be, it's close enough to what I have. I'll move the existing stub (which is the better of the two). My supposedly reliable sources think that she was alive well after 1070, and the Heimskringla mentions a third marriage for her, which fits nicely. Thanks again ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad to help :) Your Finn(r) article looks good. Haukur 23:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)

this is a heads up on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Deletion protection

Yeah, I think it does. It's more direct than before and explains in the first sentence what just happened. I think perhaps it would be useful to say "if you want to try your luck recreating it, go to the talk page" somewhere, though. See if I can fit it in... -Splash - tk 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now I read it again, the first of the bullet points is altogether rather confusing: one should go to DRV to request recreation, but the talk page to discuss ...changes...that can't be made! -Splash - tk 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, glad it isn't just me - I had no idea what that was supposed to mean either. We should try to have this template make sense since it's seeing a lot of use. Haukur 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I had a go. See what you think... -Splash - tk 12:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Far clearer and more transparent. Well done! Haukur 12:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sprotected

Please don't. People won't stop fighting over it if one person keeps on editing it. -Splash - tk 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your change is fine, and have listed it for discussion at Template_talk:Sprotected#Edit_protected. If no objections I will re-add it soon. — xaosflux Talk 23:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not. The main reason for the instability is that people cannot resist editing it (with their admin powers). Restraint by all people is needed. The edit is non-urgent and can wait. -Splash - tk 23:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re your post on my talkpage: np, we both have our POV I suppose and need to find some solution that works best for the readership of WP rather than the far smaller percentages of editors and (even moreso) admins. --AlisonW 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Friendliness to readers is very important but it doesn't completely override every other concern. It's also important to be user-friendly to editors and inviting to potential editors. Haukur 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excel Saga question

Regarding your query about Sumiyoshi's method of speech in Excel Saga, it's simply free-floating text. This is as opposed to regular, bubbled text in comics or actual speech in television. As for adding an image: I'm rather fond of the "beauty shots" :), and they follow in Red vs. Blue's footsteps. But I agree that it needs clarifying, so I plan to add a shot of his "speech" to Characters of Excel Saga. (Screen shots are difficult: it's hard to get good images including all the principal characters by organization, especially Sumiyoshi and his colleagues.) The article is at FAC, so let me know what you think.--Monocrat 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that explains! I think the article is quite good though I agree with the bloke who said that more information on the Japanese reception would be nice. Haukur 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. For the time being, I've placed an explanatory footnote next to the mention of Sumiyoshi. Thanks for bringing this up!--Monocrat 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work on Nordic lit

Thanks for the excellent effort on Nordic lit! Williamborg 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Åsta Gudbrandsdatter

This unsourced article looks like something you should take a look at. Tupsharru 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It could certainly do with sources and probably a better title but as far as I can see it is accurate. Haukur 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =D

=D --mboverload@ 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PD - WWII imagery and NARA

Regarding your question: see Image:HLHimmler.jpg, Image talk:HLHimmler.jpg, and commons:Commons:Deletion requests#Copyright_status_in_the_U.S.? for the reason for this careful phrasing ("may perhaps be made"...). Lupo 08:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now read through all of this and I'm still somewhat less than convinced. We only say a picture is in the public domain when we know it is, not when an exception "may perhaps be made". You seem to have researched this a lot so I'm willing to go with what you say. But we clearly need much better templates to state the copyright status of these images. We need one that says something like this:
  • The copyright for this picture is known to have been held by the German government at the end of the Second World War.
  • The picture was seized by US occupation forces and placed in the care of the National Archives and Records Administration.
  • The picture is in the public domain in the United States but it probably is not in other countries.
Am I reading this right? Haukur 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's only PD-US. Note that all our copyright policies (or practices) are just approximations. The commons, for instance, generally accepts any work whose author has died more than 70 years ago, although such works, if published after 1922, are not necessarily PD in the U.S. Basically same thing here, it's just the inverse.
I don't know if can state "the picture is known to be...". I think we cannot say more than "We believe that the picture is..." I would like to keep claimed applications of this 17 USC 104A(a)(2) business at an absolute minimum, exactly because it is so damn hard to prove, and I fear it might be abused. For that Himmler image, I'm willing to go along with a PD claim; I trust User:Husnock's expertise in this case. If the NARA explicitly says it was PD, or if the USHMM say an image came from the NARA and was PD, I also think a PD-US claim makes sense. But as I wrote at the commons, a liberal application of this is not a good idea. Not even the U.S. Copyright Office knows precisely how to apply this 104A(a)(2); see [6]. In fact, I've brought up the issue at the commons to test whether there might be a general opposition to using it at all. Noone has so far spoken against using it in such clearly defined, limited cases. Lupo 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken redirect

You recently created the page Arnórr Þórðarson, the entire content of which is "#REDIRECT [[Arnórr Þórðarson]]". (You'd be surprised how often this happens!) I've tried to figure out the intended target, but rather than guess wrong, it seemed to make more sense to ask you to fix it. --Russ Blau (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! Haukur 10:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gelert's Farm halt

Am I missing something with the link you added to the edit summary of this page? I don't see how its relevent to the speedy I added. take care Mammal4 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I should have been more clear. My point was that Wikipedia has a large number of articles on relatively insignificant railway stops. The article didn't seem to match any speedy deletion criterion so I didn't feel comfortable deleting it. You can try WP:AfD, though. Haukur 16:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - I'm happy to leave it alone if there is sufficient precedent. Take care Mammal4 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ragnarok ragnarök

"Ragnarok" is the english word. Like it's the Norwegian and Danish word.

Not Old Norse. Old Norse use runes. And there are also different spellings in old Norse. --Comanche cph 08:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Icelandic is not the right old Norse either. It's a language between old Norse and old Irish/English. So why have you Icelandish'ed all the words in that article? What are you some kind of ultra nationalist? --Comanche cph 08:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done no such thing. And Icelandic has very little influence from Old English and even less from Old Irish. Haukur 08:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see it on the history page.

Icelandic has influence from old English, since it's mainly are a Norwegian/Irish settlement. Icelandic language

I've not Icelandicized anything on that page. The Irish slaves in Iceland certainly didn't speak Old English. Haukur 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish slaves? omg! Where do you get this stuff from. --Comanche cph 08:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? What about Irish slaves? Haukur 09:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at this stuff. What do you call this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ragnar%C3%B6k&diff=40917754&oldid=40742943 --Comanche cph 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Using the Old Norse forms. Haukur 09:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the normal old norse form. Old Norse not one language. It's has different writings and spellings.

But please tell me why use an old language? And not modern English language. Like it's was before you edited it, and as it is in Midgard? --Comanche cph 09:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as normalized Old Norse orthography, widely used in scholarly writings in English and other languages. But when common English forms exist, such as with Thor, Odin and (arguably) Midgard, Wikipedia policy says those should be used. Haukur 10:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we should not call it "old Norse" if it's called "old Norse orthography".

Ragnarok is also a common English form. --Comanche cph 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for encouragement

Thank you for kind words - it is nice to be appreciated! I enjoy writing about things I find interesting, and it's good to get feedback as well. Particularly from someone whose name is one I have come to associate with high-quality contributions as well! :-) --Barend 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{afd top}} and {{polltop}}

Hi. Could you please use {{afd top}} on AFD discussions? Other than that, good work! Will (message me!) 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are oh so many templates in this world... Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to remember :) Haukur 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Þór Vilhjálmsson

Þór Vilhjálmsson

Icelandic is written with Latin characters, so Þ should remain as Þ although it is not a letter in this alphabetical system. That's why ñ, ç or more letters are preserved in this Wikipedia

Besides th has 2 different pronunciations. And you can find problems later, in Castillian that sound is written with z, so in theory you have to translate them later again, but people don't usually do that.

Gaudio 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with 'Þ', it's just that this fellow's name is "Thor" rather than "Þór". Check any source. Haukur 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Þór Vilhjálmsson is this person. Maybe we should have an article on him :) Stefán Ingi 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prose_Edda&diff=50560407&oldid=49202353

Hi Haukur,

That was very kind of you, but I'm still working on the article on a subpage. Maybe it will become a FA when it's finished, but it will take some time... Sigo 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Icelandology"

A Polish contributor has made a good-faith attempt to write an article on the discipline of Icelandic studies, using the term Icelandology, a direct calque of the Polish islandologia. It is now on AfD. It has previously been prodded and speedy deleted. It contains little useful material so far, but the topic is obviously valid and it seems a shame to discourage the author if s/he would be willing to continue working on it. Any suggestions? Tupsharru 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The movement of Fróði

Thanks for that. I was unaware that that was how one was supposed to move articles. I have done as you directed. Doremítzwr 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, great. Another thing to watch out for when you do moves like that is not to leave hanging double redirects. Check out Frodi and Frode and you'll see what I mean; those need updating. Haukur 14:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Absolutely nothing links to Fródi any longer (what did now links to Fróði) — a bit of a chore considering the link in Hedin and Högni was hidden behind the name ‘Frodo’; furthermore, every instance of the form ‘Fródi’ in the pages that used to link to Fródi has been changed to Fróði, ensuring consistency. I hope my cleanup was of a satisfactory standard. Thanks again for teaching me how to move pages. Doremítzwr 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done, now you realize the inner mysteries of page-moving :) I made all the same mistakes when I was new here. Haukur 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank God that Wikipedia administrators are more willing to assume good faith than Wiktionary ones (where I’ve already been blocked for making a mistake comparable to the one that you corrected)! Doremítzwr 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As an aside (being that you’re Icelandic), could you please tell me what the Icelandic words for ‘album’, ‘single’, ‘EP’ (‘extended play’), and ‘soundtrack’ (as well as their respective plural forms) are? Your help on this matter would be very much appreciated. Doremítzwr 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know this kind of terminology. I suppose 'album' might be 'plata', plural 'plötur'. I don't recall an Icelandic word for 'single' - I've seen the English word used in Icelandic, sometimes Icelandicized as "singull" (which I've never seen in plural). I wasn't familiar with the term 'EP' until looking it up now and I certainly don't know an Icelandic word for it. I think the English word for 'soundtrack' is often used in Icelandic; sometimes rendered as 'sándtrakk' with a hypothetical plural of '*sándtrökk'. I'm really not the right person to ask; maybe User:Edinborgarstefan knows. Haukur 19:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Generally, 'single' in Icelandic is 'smáskífa', plural 'smáskífur'. The soundtrack of a movie might be called 'hljóðrás' (same plural) but the English word is also used. A quick googling suggest that EP is 'EP plata' or 'stuttskífa'. Quite possibly there are other translations used. Stefán Ingi 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Now that you mention it I do recognize 'smáskífa'. I'm not sure about 'hljóðrás' - you don't mean the kind that has a plural of 'hljóðrásir'?
Hmm I guess I don't really know. Googling this seemed promising. I guess it depends on what you are really talking about. The music in a movie would just be 'kvikmyndatónlist' and a single song from a movie might be 'lag úr kvikmynd' (plural 'lög úr kvikmynd' (for several songs from the same movie) or 'lög úr kvikmyndum' (for songs from several movies)). Stefán Ingi 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- modified Stefán Ingi 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In the context of differenciating between an 'album' and a 'single', maybe it would be appropriate to use 'breiðskífa' (plural 'breiðskífur') for 'album' and 'smáskífa' as above for 'single'. Then it would be very neat to use 'stuttskífa' for 'EP' but I am not sure that 'suttskífa' will be very familliar to Icelanders. Maybe 'stuttskífa (EP)' is a good solution. Stefán Ingi 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you! The reason I ask is that I am collecting Sigur Rós’s discography, and would like to label all folders, cover art, et cetera entirely in Icelandic (as all Sigur Rós’s songs are in Icelandic (or Vonlenska) — a rarity in an English media-dominated world). The folders have mostly been dealt with thanks to your help; ‘alba’ becomes ‘breiðskífur’, ‘singles’ becomes ‘smáskífur’, and ‘extended plays’ becomes ‘stuttskífur’ (presumably). I also need to know the Icelandic for ‘soundtrack(s)’, ‘ratings’, ‘portrait’, ‘cover’, ‘ex-member’ and ‘signature’, whether “Þýðingar og Textar” is a correct translation of “Lyrics and Translation”, the Icelandic for the sentences “[Sigur Rós —] creeping up on a lichenous rock” and “[Sigur Rós —] pensive group hug”, as well as the genetive (possessive) forms, if necessary, of the various album, single, EP and soundtrack names (such as ‘Takk...’ and ‘Hoppípolla’) in order to create sentence fragments such as “Takk...’s Lyrics and Translation” and “Hoppípolla’s single cover”. There are probably other things that I’ve forgotten, but that’s all I can think of for now! Sorry to be so demanding, I just don’t know from where else I can get this information. Thanks for all your help thus far, and hopefully for assistance yet to come. Doremítzwr 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for 'soundtrack' I suggest 'lag úr kvikmynd', literally 'a song from a film', see above for the plural. What do your ratings look like? Usually albums are rated such as 'ein stjarna', 'tvær stjörnur' 'þrjár stjörnur' 'fjórar stjörnur' and 'fimm stjörnur' ('one star' up to 'five stars'). A heading for this could be 'stjörnugjöf'. If you don't use star-like objects in the ratings, then you need something different. 'Portrait', as in a painting of the head and sholders of a person, is usually just 'portrett' (same plural). 'Cover', as in the image on the front side of a cd or such things, is 'framhlið' (literally front side) (plural 'framhliðar'). 'Member' is 'meðlimur', 'ex' is 'fyrrverandi' so 'fyrrverandi meðlimur' (plural 'fyrrverandi meðlimir'). Hmm, this seems awkward. Maybe just 'John Johnson (ex-member)' as 'Jón Jónsson (hættur)' literally 'John Johnson (quit)', use '(hætt)' for a single female who has quit. Plurar (hættir) for males, (hættar) for females and (hætt) for mixed sex. 'Signature', as in a name written on a piece of paper, is 'undirskrift'. 'Textar og þýðing' is 'Lyrics and Tranlsation' (þýðingar is the plural). For “[Sigur Rós —] creeping up on a lichenous rock” and “[Sigur Rós —] pensive group hug” try '[Sigur Rós —] skríður upp á stein alsettan skófum' and '[Sigur Rós —], þenkjandi hópfaðmlag'. The latter is a bit suspicious. 'Takk...' is not a noun, so there isn't a genitive, just use 'Framhlið af Takk...', literally 'Cover of Takk...', probably the same for Hoppípolla (I'm guessing that is just a merger of 'Hopp í polla' which means 'Jumps into puddles'). Well, I hope that helps. Maybe Haukur will proofread this. Stefán Ingi 11:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Following your advice, my soundtracks folder is now labelled “Lög úr Kvikmyndum”. However, I’m unsure how to label the individual soundtracks’ covers, et cetera — “Lög úr kvikmynd framhlið af Film Name” (to mean “Soundtrack cover of Film Name”) perhaps? On that thread, could you also please tell me how to express “Album cover of Album Name”; as in “Album cover of Takk...” — is it simply “Breiðskífa framhlið af Takk...”, or do I have to alter the ‘breiðskífa’ or the ‘framhlið’ or something? I do indeed use a five–star rating system, so “Stjörnugjöf” et alibi are perfect! Is “portrett” a genuinely Icelandic word, or is it a borrowing — if the latter, is there a more authentically Icelandic word (however obscure)? As suggested, I opted for “hættur” in parentheses after the name of the (male) member who did in fact quit. “Signature” is now “Undirskrift” and “Lyrics and Translation” is now “Textar og Þýðing”, with “Þýðingar” used for the “Translations” text file in the main folder. “Hoppípolla” does indeed mean “Jumps into puddles” (or something to that effect). Since you say that you are unsure, I’ll leave your translations for “[Sigur Rós —] creeping up on a lichenous rock” and “[Sigur Rós —] pensive group hug” until Haukur proofreads them (if he’d be so kind). So yeah — Haukur, please proofread Edinborgarstefan’s translations for me! Thanks again. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 04:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, don't capitalise any words which are not at the beginning of a sentence (except for proper nouns). So “Lög úr kvikmyndum” and “Textar og þýðing”. For “Soundtrack cover of Film Name” try "Framhilð af tónlistinni úr Film name" and for “Album cover of Takk...” try "Framhlið af breiðskífunni Takk..." (similarly, "Framhlið af smáskífunni Song name"). Portrett is a borrowing, I have never heard of anything else used. Stefán Ingi 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I endorse everything Stefán says. Haukur 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Does Icelandic not allow capitalisation of words other than first word in a sentence and proper nouns, even in titles? Thanks for the “X cover of Y” explanation; is “Framhlið af stuttskífunni EP Name” the correct Icelandic translation of “EP cover of EP Name”? Can you suggest anywhere that I could find a more authentically Icelandic synonym for ‘portrett’? Again thank you very much for all your help; and thank you, Haukurth, for proofreading for me. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The first word of a title is capitalised. “Framhlið af stuttskífunni EP Name” is correct. I don't see the point in making up words for concepts that already have names, the creator of High Icelandic is the only one I know of who enjoys that. I think this thread has to come to an end now. Stefán Ingi 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much indeed for all your help. Would it be OK if I called on you for help with translations in future?
In re ‘genuinely Icelandic words’: I’m a bit of a purist, even in other languages (for example, I hate gairaigo in Japanese). It may stem from my being a native Welsh speaker, dismayed by the large number of English loan words therein. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I visited Miðstöð Háfrónska Tungumálsins (thanks for refering me to it), which only gave the High Icelandic here for portraitist and portraiture (but not portrait), which are andlitsmyndaskáld and andlitsmyndalist, respectively. Thus, I assume that portrait is ‘andlitsmynda’; if I’m wrong, please let me know. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account. --hydnjo talk 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you online 24/7 or what?

Why do you rv Scandinavia in including Finland? --Comanche cph 08:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the version I reverted to you'll notice that it still says: "The most common definition includes continental Denmark, mainland Norway and Sweden." That's the definition you like and right at the top of the article it's what we give as the primary meaning. Then the article mentions that many English language sources use expanded definitions of the term, which is an undisputed fact. Haukur 08:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude there is no expanded version of Scandinavia. It's a mistake with NORDIC countries.

The top of this article is WRONG and UNSOURCED. Scandinavia is not named after Scandinavian peninsula. Finish is not Scandinavian language -but Slavic. If Finland should be included, so should the Baltic countries.

This is pretty logical. What else should be the difference with Nordic countries and Scandinavia. --Comanche cph 08:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You may feel that the narrow sense of the term is more useful. I might even agree with you, that's just not the point - the point is that many English language sources use the expanded definition. It's just a word, it doesn't have any innate meaning - it just means what people use it to mean. To some people it includes Finland, the article should report on that. Haukur 08:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Finnish is not a Slavic language, by the way, it's one of the Finno-Ugric languages. Haukur 08:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can first write what Scandinavia really is, -den, swe and nor. Then you can write that Scandinavia in English sometimes mean + Finland. Because Scandinavia often is mistaken with Nordic countries.

Finish is more close to Slavic than Scandinavian language. Finish is a Hungarian language, as the article says. Image:Finno Ugric Languages.png --Comanche cph 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Finnish is completely unrelated to the Slavic languages. Haukur 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No it has more relations to the Slavic language than Scandinavian language. Finnish is completely unrelated to Scandinavian language. German and English has more relation to Scandinavian than Finnish has. Since they both are a Germanic language. --Comanche cph 08:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Finnish is completely unrelated to the Slavic languages. It's also unrelated to the North-Germanic languages although it has a number of loanwords from them. Haukur 08:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's also why Finland NOT are Scandinavia. --Comanche cph 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of page Dr_Poopie

Haukurth, I need to respond to your deletion of the Dr_Poopie page. It was not meant to be harmful in any way. We do have a neighbor who really doesn't mind the nickname of Dr. Poopie. He is a good friend and always helps out his neighbors when he can. This page was created to document his unusual nickname. I can remove his real name if that would make the article more appropriate. Can we get the article back? Thanks. Jeremy Conlin 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The article appeared to meet speedy deletion criterion A7. See also WP:BIO. If you belive this person is notable under our guidelines then you can try creating a new article citing reliable published sources. Haukur 13:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of St. Noels Parish Hall

You deleted St. Noels Parish Hall; you may also want to delete these articles that redirect to it:

  St._Noels_Parish_Hall_in_Willoughby_Hills
  St._Noels_Parish_Hall_in_Willoughby
  St._Noel's_Parish_Hall
  St._Noels_Hall
  St._Noel's_Hall

I'd've prodded these, but it appears I can't edit any of them... Valrith 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:STEAM

Hi,

I think it's fantastic! There are a few people I'd like to point this essay out to immediately (in big bold letters), but it will probably be most effective if its popularity grows more naturally. I'll be sure to reference it in the appropriate AfD/DRV discussions. :) Thanks for it, Xoloz 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) But please feel free to edit it. I'm not very gifted when it comes to humour and I think this will be most effective if it is funny rather than angry. Haukur 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lytir

Lytir is just a substub that I made to fill in the red link on the Vanir article, but sources include [7] and [8]. Is this adequate for inclusion? --Merovingian - Talk 00:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history project

Just wondered about your removal of the Military history project banner from Talk:Battle of Svolder. It just seems a bit random to remove it from this one article and if you want to remove them from all of wikipedia you have quite a task before you :) If you want them gone you could take it up on the project talk page, but I'll take the liberty of restoring this one in the mean time. Inge 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes reading and editing the talk page slightly more inconvenient and I don't see it adding any value, bringing in any new editors or being any use to anyone. Feel free to restore it, of course, if you find it useful. I'd be interested in what use you see in it. Haukur 15:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I might add that I don't think "start-Class" makes any sense as an estimate for the article's quality. If these tags are to be at all useful or interesting then they need to be maintained and updated - and it seems to me that more often than not they won't be. Haukur 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well it is an advertisement bringing people interested in military history togeather at the Military history project. It helps the military history project group different articles both in terms of quality and importance. It also helps users interested in a particular subject of military history find other articles to read and work on. This will in turn help this spesific article as more people interested in contributing on the topic might find it. On the negative side I agree that it does take up space on the talk page and it is one more thing you might read before getting to the piece of dicussion you are seeking. I feel that the positives outweigh the nagatives though. But if you have something against the banner I would urge you to take it up on the project talk page and bring the problem to more people's attention. (or maybe someone there might be better at convincing you of their worth:) ) Inge 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If the article has been improved it can be but on this list and will be reasessed quickly. Inge 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help me?

Hi Haukurth, i want to ask you if you could translate me something from English to Icelandic language. Text is here. And please leave your name and e-mail adress on that page after you translate it (if you wish). Thank you. --SasaStefanovic • 14:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Neah, looks like too much bother :) Haukur 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marty Griffin

I've restored the above article which you deleted recently. It looked like a good delete because a vandal had removed most of the article but the history clearly shows there was more to it... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks like I didn't check the history properly, I'm glad you caught it. Haukur 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manga question

The time has come when I must seek your advice :) Do you think this manga author is at all notable? [9] [10] I'm interested in one of the series because it depicts the Battle of Svolder, which I'm working on. Haukur 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be little about the series on the net. An excelent reason why a wikipedia coverage would be nice. I have a few questions for you.
  • When did the series start?
  • How many volumes/chapters did this series proceed?
  • Is it still ongoing?
  • Did the author of the manga create anything else?
After answering those question I'll be able to give a more tastefull answer.
--Cat out 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I know very little about this and I don't have a good idea on where to find out more but I'll do my best. There is a very helpful book here if you have a Google account: [11]
  • The auhor is Azumi Ryo.
  • She started publishing in 1986.
  • Her first major work was Akai Tsurugi (The Scarlet Sword). According to that book by Gísli Pálsson, Akai Tsurugi was published in four volumes of about 200 pages each between 1986 and 1988 but this website indicates that it went on till 1993 with a total of 10 volumes, I'm sure that's more up to date.[12]
  • Judging from her webpage she is still active and has published several other series.[13]
  • Amazon.co.jp lists 35 items by her. [14]
I'm guessing this should be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Do you agree? Would you be willing to help me write an article? Almost all the relevant sources are in Japanese, which I can't read at all and I've never written an article about a manga artist. Haukur 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Woha, I was expecting a 1, 2 volume series. A full 10 volume manga series is more than notable enough. Its age is probably why there is little about it on the net (which will make citing sources difficult)
I really know nothing about the series. Furthermore I can't read kanji or any japanese font well enough to ne of help anyone. But, I'll gladly help you in any way I can, ranging from tweaks to templates. What kind of an assitance are you looking for?
--Cat out 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and she is mentioned (あずみ椋) in the Japanese Wikipedia in the article about Der Ring des Nibelungen. [15] Haukur 16:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't kept this discussion tidy! I've now replied on my talk page. Haukur 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologise, its adequately tidy. --Cat out 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, thank you! Could you maybe point me to a guideline on how to write articles like this? Is there a WikiProject? And once I've got a stub could you maybe read it over for me and see if I've misunderstood something? Haukur 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is the anime/manga wikiproject and articles like Excel Saga and Oh My Goddess!
Generaly what is expected from manga/anime relatd articles is a brief plot summary, info about the notable characters, some sort of a backgound of the characters if applicable (such as if they have norse background), its place in culture and how it affected the industry. How popular it was (such as sale info or ratings (anime)) is also nice additional info. --Cat out
Thanks for the help! I tried my best at Ryo Azumi. But I'm not even sure what title to use. Should the family name be first or last? Should the title use Ryō, Ryou or Ryo? I thought using the macrons was the standard but I also see some articles that don't. Haukur 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstname lastname format is observed (family name comes after given name). If proper romaji is "Ryō" then it shall be that (I am no expert in romaji). However all other combinations should be redirects including his/her name in kanji.
There is no real standard but you are whelmingly recomended to use this format.
--Cat out 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I followed your advice and included the macron in the title. Now I'm going to make all of the following into redirects.

Thanks for the help! Haukur 08:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One more question (I've never worked with Japanese names before). Which is more standard - to include a space between the two names or not to? Haukur 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A space is preferable. Make it look like an english name basicaly, thats the informal standard. --Cat out 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faroese dance

Hey Haukur! Please feel free, to use the article fo:Føroyskur dansur for the Icelandic Wikipedia. I guess, many Icelandic readers are interested in that topic :-) Bless -- Arne List 20:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tað er rætt! Takk :) Haukur 21:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Somuleiðis takk :) Annars: Hammershaimbs originalext á donskum -- Arne List 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images at Padme article

I came to my senses and realized that three images one section was a bit excessive. The images from Jabba the Hutt are very diverse, which is probably why it didn't raise anyone's attention. Thanks again for taking the time to review this article. Dmoon1 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the kind words and actually taking the time to read the article (I noticed you caught a spelling error and misplaced "the"). I think only one of the editors (besides yourself) who has commented at the FAC has taken the time to read the thing. Dmoon1 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :) Haukur 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed another editor removed the image of Natalie Portman, which is fine because I don't think there was enough relevant discussion in that section about her wearing the costumes and makeup (it would have been better placed in the "Costumes" section, but that section already has two fair use images). I do, however, think the section needs an "out-of-universe" image of the development of the character as all the images are of the character herself. I found an image of Lucas directing Portman and one of her co-stars. I don't really like the caption I've placed there though. Can you tell me what you think? Dmoon1 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the best image of Portman and Lucas I could find (too bad McGregor has to be in the center of this shot). If I can find something that shows just Lucas and Portman on the set I'll replace it (but I hate to keep uploading fair use images onto Wikipedia). Dmoon1 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather not be an admin at this point in my life. My primary interests at Wikipedia is research and writing (but thanks for the offer). Dmoon1 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Hey there Haukur. Thank you very much for your efforts to get me unblocked! I really appreciate that, and you were very kind to do so. I don't have any kinds of special stars or anything, but if I did, I would give you one. Thanks again! :) (Cardsplayer4life 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Thank you. I hope you stay around, put this behind you and do some good editing! Haukur 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No harm, no foul? - brenneman {L} 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's a wiki :) Haukur 16:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblocker

I don't know if anybody has pointed this out to you yet, but the "autoblocker" only takes effect when a blocked username attempts to &action=edit a page. Create a test account, block it, and see for yourself. —freak(talk) 15:59, Aug. 10, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) Haukur 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hallo

i'm trying to move it to ragnarök to ragnarok as the english spelling form. --Comanche cph 20:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, that's not the way you do that. You would need admin assistance to make that move and you shouldn't be making it without consensus. As you know several people don't agree with you that it'd be a good move. Haukur 21:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hundreds of dollars

Thanks for pointing this out; I have revised this paragraph slightly. Dmoon1 11:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting this article and offering editorial assistance. I was wondering if you could strike out your original comment at the top of the FAC? I don't want to be presumptuous and do it myself. Dmoon1 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canute

I'll see if I can put some work into it soon. Everyking 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canute the Great

I really think you should consider a complete achademic approach on Wikipedia. If the contents are contested, not simply by the contester alone, but achademically, which will always occur if evidence conflicts, a compromise should be reached, which states the facts, rather than the fictions. I maybe started writing this in a knee jerk reaction to the facts which I see to be wrong, although I am ailling to compromise, and the statements I wrote, painstakeingly, were simply historical scholarship, yet you delete them out of hand. If I may not compromise, but you simply delte all of the things I write, you and me, disagree, severely.

I want the betterment of Wikipedia, which I personally get on searches on the internet, and the simple mainstream opinion does little to enhearten. If you wish to enhance the minds of people, maybe you should consider the complete achademic approach.

It is impossible if you hold on to one point of view, and the points which should be of note fall on deaf ears, or blind eyes absord them. I want to help you, yet if you don't want me to I can't. If the question marks, and the engrandisement of history bother you, I think Wikipedia will suffer, because the truth will never be, it. WikieWikieWikie

I appreciate the difficultie you must face, and the points you make are meritous (as well as a challenge, which is always a peasure, if on a reasonable basis). I'm not sure if commanche has anything to do with you, but I suppose their point was of merit too.

I will keep trying until you are satified. Don't worry... I have made good use of my user page now, and the next post I make on the Canute the great page will be an article which covers the arguments at hand, with references in too.

If you happen to look at it, comments, especially of Saga points, although I only intend to use one or two quotes of saga evidence, will be most welcome. I must say sagas were two sided, religiously, on the whole anyway, if Chritian at all, and the evidences suggests Christianity was an aquaintance, rather than life, of the Vikings. WikieWikieWikie

[edit] interpretatio germanica

I think I didn't phrase this very well. This was inspired by [16], and my point is that the whole procedure has little to do with finding synchronic "equivalence" or "similarity" and much more with traditional identifications that were made centuries earlier. The identification of Woden with Mercury dates to the 1st century at least and was half a millennium old at the time 'Wednesday' was coined. Woden had changed a lot during that time, the original identification likely being connected with that of Lugus as Mercury. dab (ᛏ) 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey thanks for the barnstar! I seem to be collecting surreals... :/ And you even did the ribbon... now that's service! Herostratus 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (a.k.a the Emperor of the North)

I will include Bretwalda and the historically factual conjecture in with the arguments I wish to put forward, which I hope will balance the article. If (a.k.a...) is unesceaary contribute. It means alot you didn't wipe the rest, yet let me have a chance to make it a better piece of study. WikieWikieWikie

Sorry. May I ask the problem with it this time exactly. I can't provide sources for everything, especially generally accpeted ideas, and the Emperor of the North is a commonly used term which describes this one figure in history with clarification as to his role. I also added Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings because the evidence suggests some connections strongly, and the links explain further as to the reality of any such situation, which is what encyclopedias are meant for, whether it is nescessarily real, par-se, misses the point, from a fully historical point of view. I suppose this Joms thing, and the Emperor of the North, is like the Legend of the Waves, eventual speculation, with real weight in reality. I really can't see your problem.WikieWikieWikie.

It's usually best to sign your comments with |; that way you get a timestamp as well as a link to your userpage. As to your points: 1) You do have to be able to provide sources for everything, even things you think are generally accepted ideas, 2) Cnut was not called Emperor of the North in his own time and it's not something historians generally call him, there's no reason for us to give him that title, certainly not so prominently, 3) The Jomsvikings are more legend than history but even so they have little to do with Cnut. Haukur 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me it's any excuse. If historians don't all refer to Canute the Grreat as the Emperor of the North now (many do), will they ever? Also is there any historical figure with any links to the Joms. This is maybe the one of the only excuses to link them anywhere.

WikieWikieWikie

WikieWikieWikie 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Haurkurth. I hope your Cnut sagas/skalds study is on track, look at the talk page for a point I made which I hope has some weight with you. It is to do with Ottar the Black's poem and the evidence in it which suggests Cnut's age. If my point gets the poem right, it is decidedly likely his age is ten years too young, which is massive. It also begs the question of his marriage to Aelfgifu of Northampton, a woman of the Danelaw, which very likely was a refuge for a Viking raider or two, especially a Danish prince.

On the Emperor of the North matter though, I was just looking at the King of Ireland page, which was on kingship, and the constitutional indivisibility of the crown which means Kings with imperiums that rule more than one country, automatically must be Emperors. It is up to argument if Cnut qualifies as the Emperor of the North, although he certainly was an emperor. I certiainly sounds far more reasonable than, Viking King-Emperor of England, Denmark, Norway, and some of the Swedes, or, Viking Emperor, King of England, Denmark, Norway and some of Sweden. Maybe Emperor of Cnutmark might be an accurate interpretation?

Surely it might be best if we just say, the Emperor of the North!

WikieWikieWikie 17:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

All I was hoping to see was for Kelly Martin to state that she was sorry if she offended editors...or something along those lines. Obviously, that isn't going to happen. I don't have any interest at this time in an arbcom slugfest with a bunch of admins that have self proclaimed themselves to be the "community", but appreciate the time you spent to try and bring some resolution to the issue about her attitude.--MONGO 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Haukur 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome, I think this was a positive step. It's usually the best response to "I dare you to!" anyway. I'd hope for something other than knee-jerk rejections, but it's always hard to tell. The list of recusals is going to be fascinating.
brenneman {L} 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're right...she did state that it could be taken to arbcom...but that she doubted they would desysop her. Anyway, that's not the resolution I was looking for...just hoping for some evidence on her part that she would try and be less like a bulldozer.--MONGO 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. She won't accept criticism unless it comes from someone she really respects and I was hoping the ArbCom could be that entity. Haukur 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you decide to go ahead with the ArbCom case after the RfC is complete, please do let me know. I'd be happy to help create something "more structured" as Sam Korn requested. And not because I want to see Kelly deadmined, I hasten to add. =) Powers T 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure! Let's give it some time now and then I'll contact you later on if I feel there are still issues. Haukur 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Haukurth, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digressions are good

I see digression is a word you like useing on Wikipedia. I am sure it makes editing things a whoole lot easrie just to say, digression, if things get slightly complicated. I am inclined to point out that life is one big digression, and the nature of history puts things in the scope of a bigger picture more than simple facts may be put on paper. I think it is easier to learn, as well as teach, if you include some colour.

Wikipedia lacks colour. It works on some parts, yet it is just too simple. Life isn't so simple that we can know things about one person, fully, with no connection, or even very slight conncection, with the events in which they took part. I am really very upset you didn't think the Eirik stuff was good enough. I was filling gaps which I saw. Also it just doesn't look good with the battle of Svolder at the top, the picture is a panorama which can't be seen properly if it squeezes undimensionally next to the contents box.

WikieWikieWikie

You say that Wikipedia lacks colour and you're right. But that's intentional and you should not attempt to remedy it. Your colourful sentences are swimming against the tide. Wikipedia avoids digressions, it's written in a simple, concise encyclopaedic style. It's heavily internally linked so if the reader becomes interested in something other than the core topic she's reading about she can follow links to other articles. I'm not saying your kind of writing doesn't have a place but that place isn't Wikipedia.

Fair enough! I get it... I am wrong, you are right. No really, I mean it. I think I am just bored, trying to contribute to something which I find interesting with scarcely enough facts on one topic, while no original sources. I will try to step back and treat this like a long term hobby. I hope I may improve this grammatically and stylistically though. I just need to refrain from trailing from the point on my own colouring in agenda.

WikieWikieWikie WikieWikieWikie 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I upset you by reverting you on the Eric article. I'll go over it again, there may well be something in your edit that improves the article. Haukur 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I see what you mean about 'Viking' use though.

WikieWikieWikie WikieWikieWikie 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sigrid and olaf.jpg

This picture (and others with signature EW) is probably still copyrighted and will not expire until 1938+70=2008. Modern reprinting still have the note "Used with permission by the Estate of Erik Werenskiold" Fornadan (t) 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:| That's so unfair, this was published in the 19th century. I suppose you're right, I'll look into it. Haukur 10:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Afaik, it's only the year of death of the artist that matters. Try asking one of the admins at no: Fornadan (t) 10:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've checked this now. In Europe, indeed, it is more or less only the year of the death of the artist that matters so Werenskiold's art has not entered the public domain in Europe and probably won't until January 1st 2009. But the big fancy edition of Heimskringla where those drawings first appeared was published in 1899. [17] Acccording to this chart works published outside the United States before 1 July 1909 are in the public domain in the US. That's good enough for Wikipedia (the English one, anyhow), which has plenty of material which is only in the public domain in the US. But I'll need to add more information to the image description pages. Thanks for the heads up! Haukur 10:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deville's RfA

Hello, Haukur, and thank you for the support and detailed comment on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiian English HOAX

You were duped by user Gilgamesh. Please see the talk page for the Wikipedia policy on using English and naming conventions. Thank you. Agent X 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for your comments

Hi. I saw your input on my suggestion in the Village pump. Maybe you can help me. I am working to remove a pop culture section on Hwacha. Unfortunatly, the other editors refuse to (as of late) use the talk page and simply revert with any comments in the edit summary. I started a RfC, but only one person as so far commented. Can you please come to Hwacha's talk page and leave a comment? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems rather superfluous to me but there are some people supporting it on the talk page so maybe it's not worth fighting over :| I tried to reduce its size, suggesting the fire arrows stuff could be moved. This sentence also seems almost content-free to me:
"A resurgence in popularity in regards to the classical Korean weaponry involved in Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is seen specifically in modern South Korean society where historical dramas and soap operas aired in major private terrestrial networks such as MBC and public networks like KBS have popularized it."
It's a historical weapon - that it is featured in historical dramas almost goes without saying, without some specific examples this is worth little. And why the roundaboutish "classical Korean weaponry involved in Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea"? Are we talking about Hwachas or not? Haukur 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have the same opinion about that section, but they reverted it without saying anything on the talk page, which I expected. Maybe we should take a quick vote to change the concensus? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 07:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of the invasion of Iceland

Thanks for the link you provided. The point I tried to make regarding the invasion of Iceland is not its legality or illegality though. I believe that it is not up to wikipedia to decide whether something is legal or illegal. If there are authoritative sources who claim A or B, they should be mentioned. It's not our task to weigh their arguments and/or to choose who is right and who is wrong. That's why I preferred to see the phrase "illegal under international law" removed from the Reykjavík article. I also can't say I'm too thrilled with the word "occupation". It may be technically correct from a historic point of view, the issue is whether the use of the word is appropriate from an encyclopedic point of view. I'm sure that there are better alternatives for "occupation." I must admit that I haven't been able to come with any though. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA message

My RfA video message
Image:RfA message.ogg
Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agaberte

Hi Haukur.

If this charachter looks apochryphical to you, as you wrote, why didn't you propose the article for deletion? Sigo 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There's the same article on fr: I've changed its name into Hardgreip and will expand it with the information given by Saxo Grammaticus. Sigo 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Reign of Cnut vs The Viking World

Haukur, I was just recommened to buy, The Viking World, on Amazon, and the search option was available on the contents, so, obviously, I typed Cnut the Great, as always, and the section which said most was saying he was the most powerful Scandinavian ruler, not only king of England and Denmark, but king of Norway, as well as Sweden. The proof of the lordship of Sweden is in a coin, 'CNUT REX SV(enorum)', which was minted in Sigtuna.

I thought, well, if it is a new publication, I will hold it as the most rescent research, and the map question might have an answer made available, yet, it was 2001 publication, and the book you sited was, I thought, new. I was then shown the The Reign of Cnut on other books bought after I put The Viking World on my wish list, and the publication date was 1999, two years prior.

Now, it really might be a good idea to go with this most rescent research, and the book is expertly written. Unless your siteing says the CNUT REX SV(enorum), was an English mint, or English minter in Sweden with a job for a lot of coins in the capitol region, although his mint did not praise the King of Sweden, as king, and the proof stands on it's head and does front flips with no trouble at all.

If a coin was minted in Sweden's capitol region, it is proof the king on the coin was King of Sweden. If you think contrary, I think the world stands on it's head and the proof you site is just as ambiguos as the rest, which nullifies the whole point of history and truth. I really think it is a leap of faith in the wrong direction to be stood with the evidence, which relies on the uselessness of evidence, so believe it.

WikieWikieWikie 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's understandable, though regrettable, that popularizations for the public lag a few years behind the latest academic research. Haukur 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it still makes no difference with the quite overly larboriousness cast on the coin significance. M.K Kawson's, 2004, Cnut: England's Viking King, pg 96, says 'coins seem for a time to have been minted in (Cnut's) name in Sigtuna (on Lake Malar, near modern Stokholm) with the title REX SW (king of Swedes), by a moneyer who had earlier struck for Anund Jacob', and 'the royal title in the 1027 Letter suggests that (Cnut) did eventually claim suzerainty over some Swedes'. Anund Jacob King of Sweden and Olaf King of Norway were the kings Cnut fought at Holy River, 1026, and the defeat of them surely meant their reigns were Cnut's. This is all the evidence which I require, and the present day Danish offical history map says it too.

It is likely his reign in Sweden was as a distant overlord though, rather than a Swedish monarch, as such, yet this was the nature of kingship at the time anyway, with lots of smaller kingdoms under a larger kingdom's rule, certainly the Swedish kingdom. Which leads to the Emperor of the North hypothesis, especially as the fleuir de lis on the Sigtuna coins was a mark of the Holy Roman Emperors, and the crown Cnut wears in the gold coin on the article copies the HRE crown's Centurion like plume. Only king of the English Danish and Norwegians, Cnut was hardly Emperor of the North, although with Sweden, he was the overlord of all the Viking nations. Also, the Sigtuna mint struck coins for Harthacnut too, which means he became King of Sweden, yet maybe only for a short period, much like he was probably a claimant to be King of Norway for a while.

Anyway, M.K Lawson is impressed by the Jonsson argument, in, 'The Coinage of Cnut', which I assume is the one you refer to, as he says it 'shows fairly conclusively that these coins 'cannot be taken as evidence that Cnut ruled in Sweden', and suggests that the part of the country taken after Holy River was the province of Blekinge, to the east of Skane', and the reason he agrees is 'extant specimens all emanate from a single obverse die'. It is clear though his moneyer was Anund Jacob's, and the claim, although only a claim, was emanant from the Sigtuna region, so, the map I suggest we use is the perfect compromise, as the part which surrounds Lake Malar is the part of Sweden which struck Cnut's coinage as REX SW. And the historian Bo Grusland 'has rescently contended' that a water course near Stokholm once bore the name (Holy River), which is stronger evidence than the Helga A name of a river of southern Sweden. Vastergotland, to boot, has rune stones which honour thegns, thegns are only English, which means maybe REX SW coins with CNUT proofs were there too.

I hope you get on the band wagon of Cnut trumpeters, and the evidence is all here which heavily weighs in favour of the Emperor of the North's claim to at least that little bit which I spent ages doctoring on the map.

WikieWikieWikie 09:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Anund Jacob moneyer's coin which says CNUT REX SW not enough?

WikieWikieWikie 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilawyering

I was just restoring a version which I think is far better. In the process I thought I'd point out that nothing in Jimbo's recent intervention precludes my preferred version; in fact the "always has been" part of his edit summary indicates that he thought the old version was perfectly fine. Wikilawyering is a pejorative term which people (like me:) tend to take offence at. Haukur 12:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You based your rationale upon a technicality. Jimbo could have reverted the wording, but he didn't. Of course, you're welcome to ask him which version he prefers. —David Levy 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you still haven't understood my point, which is my fault for not explaining clearly enough. I don't particularly care so much what version Jimbo prefers. He clearly didn't intend to decree a final wording for the page with his edit. All he was saying was that IAR itself had always been policy as far as he was concerned. That still gives us a lot of latitude for the wording, including the old wording which I prefer. Haukur 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The community prefers the new wording. —David Levy 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think so? Haukur 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules —David Levy 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illugi the Black

A man of this name (Illugi inn Svarti) is mentioned in several Icelandic genealogies, (He's mentioned in Egla and Eyrbyggja, for instance) and he seems to have been regarded as significant (maybe one of the landsnamamenn?), but I can't seem to find any info on him anywhere in English, the best I can find is mention in other sögur and thaettir... He does not even seem to have an article in either or wiki.Islenska, Nynorsk or Bokmal (not that I can read those, but a hit would confirm notability)... do you know if there is any separate information on him, or must I definitely hunt all separate mentions and compile the available information for myself (and not put the compilation here, as it would be OR)? --Svartalf 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

This particular image is used because it's been discussed in the news media. Its status has been checked by two editors who are experts on the image policies. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Which ones were you thinking of? I've e-mailed the Community Security Trust for a free license for their two (the graffiti in Leeds University and on the building. Were there others you were thinking of? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The French cemetery I don't recall adding or uploading. The Magen David and the Swastika appeared in a Jordanian newspaper, and our point is that these things are appearing in Arab newspapers, so we couldn't just create one ourselves. The Octopus is a Nazi image and again not one we could simply copy, because the whole point is to show where it comes from. I have no knowledge of its status, but if not PD then FU; certainly, no one will seriously contest it (unless they're out to cause trouble, of course). The cartoon I know nothing about. All this has been discussed already by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harald III of Norway

Hi- do you happen to know what year Harald III of Norway became King of Norway? The article has had two conflicting dates of 1046 or 1047. -- Stbalbach 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite possible that you can make a case for either year. The kings' sagas don't give a lot of hard dates, usually making do with regnal years. They also sometimes disagree on dates. But I think the usual interpretation of the sources here is that Harald became co-ruler in 1045 or 1046 and sole king in 1047 when Magnus died. Give Google Books a spin if you want to cite some sources. Haukur 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. thank you. -- Stbalbach 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you get carried away, the picture is mine. It belongs to me. I inherited it from my mother (who is still alive but has no use for it). As her only legal heir, I am fully entitled to do whatever I want with the picture, so please chill out. Danny 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly 'chilled out' - I just want the licencing to be clear. Haukur 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gauthild Algautsdatter

Do you think Gauthild Algautsdatter is worth keeping, or possibly better redirected somewhere? Everybody in her immediate family is, as far as I can understand, of questionable historicity, and, judging from the English translation of Heimskringla on Wikisource, she is mentioned in passing but appears not to be the main character of any memorable story. The "sources" now in the article are private webpages, not WP:RS. Tupsharru 04:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Húsendur

Thank you SO much for teaching me more about my username! Icelandic is a great language, you're so lucky to have it as mother tongue. :) By the way, I noticed that you are involved with linguistics. Do you by any chance know the phonetic transcription of the word "húsönd", so that I could place it on my user page? Best regards. --Húsönd 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cookie!
Here's a chocolate chip cookie for your kind help. Best regards.--Húsönd 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decided

I've thought it out, and I'm up for renomination if you're up for nominating. The support I've received from this episode, publicly and privately, has been very heartening and it's sufficient to make me think I have a chance, even if it's a small one, in spite of the opposition of the arbs and their supporters. Everyking 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'm sure you can put together a good case. I appreciate it. Everyking 09:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

Thank you for participating in my game of chess. The game was won by black.
A new game has started at User:GW_Simulations/Chess/Game 2 if you are interested in participating.
GW_Simulations - 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

What about creating a project or a portal (or both) about Norse mythology ? Sigo 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

About a project, see also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:WikiProject. Sigo 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
See also here for a portal. Sigo 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] names of people from the norwegian middle ages

Hello! May I direct your attention to the talk page of civil war era in Norway? You would seem to be one of the more experienced contributors to old Norse topics!--Barend 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More naming issues

See Talk:Eric I of Norway

Fornadan (t) 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Thank you, Haukur. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you ...

... for your comment about my comment on RfB. I appreciate that you noticed and took the time to write. Ironically, tonight I may have to wade in an RfD and advocate strongly for admin overruling of the majority view, but it's an exceptional circumstance. Ninety-nine percent of the time, I find the user consensus has things more-or-less right. Hope our paths will cross again on-Wiki. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Thanks for the vote of confidence. As I'm coming up on my one year anniversary as a Wikipedian, adminship is indeed something that I've been giving a lot of thought to. I've even been making lists of pro's and con's, and writing draft answers to the questions, at User:Elonka/RfA ponderings. If you have time, I'd appreciate if you could take a look, and let me know if you can think of any other roadblocks I might want to consider, before letting my hat be thrown into the ring? --Elonka 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look and send you any thoughts that come to me :) Haukur 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MA Pic

Thanks for the blah's image:smile.gif -- Avi 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Viking

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Oh, sorry. I just meant to remove the 'fac' template since it's not a current featured article candidate but I must have had an old version open. Haukur 09:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelmstrasse

Consensus was not reached. Unless you are double counting and half counting votes as you did before, the spelling utilising the ss is where it is supposed to remain. Also, the personal preferences of an administrator should not interfere with his or her duties to observe conventions and consensus. I suggest you restore the location back lest that letting it stand reflects badly upon you. Charles 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't close the survey, Philip Baird Shearer did. [18] [19] It's not a question of personal preferences (I've made moves to 'ss' too), I'd just like us to maintain the agreement we reached at the time. Haukur 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Who reached the agreement? As far as I've observed, the requested move was closed incorrectly and effort to restore it was first reversed by Edinborger and secondly by you. By observing all rules and fairness (which I have done even when I have not agreed with the "outcome" of a vote), the article should stay at the form utilising the ss. Not only is it the most common way of writing such words in English, it is also valid in German and was also not opposed enough to warrant a move to the form utilising the ß. Charles 17:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The agreement was basically that we shouldn't move any more street articles and that new ones should be kept where the original author started it. That seemed like such a nice deal that I was hoping we could keep to it. Haukur 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
13 to 9 comes out to 59% to 41%. Consensus was not reached. Counting Elonka's vote makes it 57% to 43%. The number is set at 60%. Messing with that established rule opens a whole can of worms that would cause a mess. Charles 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree that Process is Important. Philip discounted one support vote and one oppose vote, putting him above the 60% threshold. Haukur 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
What of Elonka's vote, which was added before the page poll was officially closed? That drops consensus below 60%. Charles 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Philip discounted it because it arrived after he put a POLL CLOSED notice up. He reasoned that potentially some other latecomer intending to vote the other way might have been turned off by the sign and thus it was unfair to count any vote arriving after it was put up. I'm not saying this was the only fair way to do things but it seems like a fair way to do things and there's no reason to think that Philip was personally biased against 'strasse' (in fact we know that his sympathies are on the other side). Haukur 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's also worth noting, though it wasn't known at the time, that Bubba_ditto and Thumbelina are votestacking sockpuppet accounts as confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thumbelina. Haukur 17:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] babel correction

Hi, thanks for correcting my userpage where you raised my self-estimated level of English from en-2 to en-2. I dare to disagree. While my English is decent for a non-native speaker, I often have a difficulty writing encyclopedically, having to look myself up in the dictionaries and asking my en-N to correct articles after myself, especially the articles and prepositions. As such, I did not consider myself "advanced" (en-3). But if you are sure anout your correction, I will take it as a complement and let it stand. Cheers, --Irpen 23:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your English is fine :) As the Babel-boxes are used xx-3 is basic competent non-native writing like mine or yours. xx-2 is when you can more or less read but not really write grammatically. Haukur 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to revert back, of course, if you're more comfortable with xx-2 - I was just making a (somewhat cheeky) suggestion :) Haukur 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, let's share a cooky! --Irpen 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
Thanks, let's share a cooky! --Irpen 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh! Tempting. I'm kind of on a diet but I guess I can afford to consume a few bytes :) Haukur 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRMB image

Hi, I uploaded a BRMB image with the license as given permission by the author. You did a speedy delete, can you tell me what license I should choose? I know the owner of the picture. eventine 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You should contact the person who holds the copyright to the picture and ask him or her to release it under a free licence so that anyone can use it for any purpose (that includes things like selling postcards with it, decorating political propaganda with it or incorporating it into a pornographic work - all without paying a dime to the copyright holder). See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. Haukur 10:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coöperative diacritic use

Since you seem to be a fan of the use of diacritics, I felt that I should draw your attention to my newly–created essay at WP:WODS, as well as its first application at Organization for Security and Coöperation in Europe. I hope that they are of interest to you. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Legendary sagas category

I have raised some questions at Category talk:Legendary sagas. As I said there, I realize some of it may be premature and would be taken care of for this newly created category, but it's better to raise the questions now that they came to my mind. Gene Nygaard 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hi Haukur. I have reworked two articles, Hroðgar and Halga, and I would like to have them peer reviewed. Since you are knowledgeable in the field of Norse sagas, you may have opinions.--Berig 10:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read Hroðgar now. You've clearly done a lot of research here and it's a nice informative article. If I were to find fault with it I'd say the presentation of the information is slightly confusing (or, at least, I get a bit confused). Throughout the article the correspondence between the characters in the different sources is continually pointed out (with the Old English names given a sort of priority). Perhaps it would be more readable to elaborate each version on its own at more length and then have an additional section where the correspondences (and discrepancies) are pointed out. As it is the article largely consists of a soup of names with not that much storyline to tie them together and make them memorable.
It's very interesting that the same legend survived both in England and Scandinavia and perhaps the article could be given a wider focus by going a bit into that. How do we suppose it happened? Do we suppose that the legend has historical roots? Mythological roots? What other legends are similar in this respect?
What I suppose I'm really asking for here is a somewhat longer article. Hroðgar is a major character in Beowulf and that section could be beefed up with a longer plot summary and perhaps a quote or two to liven up the somewhat dry geneological information. Haukur 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't got much to add on Halga. It might be interested to go into the nature of incest in Germanic and Indo-European tradition (I think Dumézil had something on that) but perhaps other articles are more suitable for that. Haukur 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I actually share your concerns about the text. I will try to fill in more information to make it more readable. As for the "soup of names", I don't know what to do about it, since I feel that each section should represent the name set of the source text, and at the same time inform the reader on the correspondence with the most well-known of the source texts.--Berig 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Húsönd kindly asks for your help

Hi again Haukur. I was wondering if you could help me once again with your Icelandic. Could you please translate "Húsönd welcomes you to the only user page with a touch of Lake Mývatn" into your mother tongue? I am about to renovate my user page and thought that I could give it a further Icelandic touch. If you translate this sentence, it shall be the heading of the page. :-)

By the way, I noticed that you have uploaded to Wikipedia images that you say you found on the web. So now I wonder, can I upload images that I find on the web when their respective websites make no reference whatsoever to copyright? Or am I still not allowed to upload them? Sorry if I'm being too bothersome. Best regards.--Húsönd 21:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Try this: "Húsönd býður ykkur velkomin á einu notandasíðuna þar sem Mývatni bregður fyrir!" I'm not quite sure what images I found on the web you're talking about - if you give me a specific example I may be able to help. Haukur 21:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The Golden Quackstar
I award you Húsönd's Golden Quackstar for kindly helping me with my request. Thank you so much. Best regards. --Húsönd 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know specifically what images. I just read so on your user page ("I like contributing images. Some I've scanned, some I've found on the web"). Anyway I now recall that I have uploaded at least one image that I found on the web before, which made no reference to copyright. I wrote that on the summary while uploading it to Wikipedia and nobody deleted it, so it might be allowed.--Húsönd 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Quackstar, I'll display it proudly :) I didn't mean "found on the web" in the sense "any old picture I found on the web". You have to make sure that the licencing works out. Take Image:Sverrir_by_Arbo.jpg for example. I found this image on the web but the reason we can use it on Wikipedia is that it is in the public domain because the artist died more than 70 years ago. Haukur 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. Thanks anyway. I'll keep searching for images that are not copyvio. Regards.--Húsönd 23:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of days later... Hi Haukur. Like I said, your translation is now the heading of my user page. Once again, thank you very much. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 04:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing images

Please don't replace low resolution fair use images with high resolution ones. Our fair use policy is not to keep such images in a size larger than what we need in the articles. Haukur 19:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to do some housekeeping. Seems like I need to review WP:FU. - Runch 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem, you were obviously well-intentioned and for any other class of images this would have been the right thing to do. This fair use stuff can be counterintuitive. Haukur 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removing Images

Please don't just remove the image on the "Paul Thelen" page. I have the right to use it!

Ah, yes, no doubt - but, somewhat counterintuitively, that's not enough. Read this. Haukur 23:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright tags

Now I really am confused. If I get permission from the copyright owner by e-mail and this is sent to permission AT wikipedia.org to say that the image can be used by anyone for any purpose provided that the copyright owner is credited, would you/Wikipedia still have any objections? I started this discussion because it is not spelt out clearly and simply. If it takes this long for me to work this out, then I thing I have proved my point. Some sort of decision tree is needed to allow useful images to be loaded for the satisfaction of all. 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The permission you speak of is adequate as long as it is clear to the person giving the permission that any purpose includes modification of the image and production of derived works from it. The situation is Byzantine in its complexity, inadequately documented and, yes, some sort of decision tree would likely be helpful. Lately most of the effort has gone into cleaning up fair use images but the freely licenced ones are a mess as well. Haukur 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viking

Thanks for your message. I really appreciate it. Sigo 17:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RfA changes

I like! :) Glen 14:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you have some time...

...could you give your opinion about this? Thanks. Sigo 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh captain, my captain

Thank you. I'm verging on losing my cool, and it's nice how much better a chuckle at my own expense has made me feel. Do I get to pick my own cabin boy?
brenneman {L} 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But you can't kill and eat him if things don't go your way. Haukur 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smá greiða

Sæll Haukur, geturðu gert mér smá greiða, og eytt fyrsta útgáfunni af þessi mynd [20] fyrir mig. Mér líður ekki vel með að nafnið mitt sé á síðinu. Takk kærlega. Icemuon 00:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Takk fyrir að laga söguna fyrir mig. Þetta er fyrsta myndin mín og ég var ekki alveg viss hvernig þetta virkar. Vonandi eru höfundarréttarmálin rétt núna. Icemuon 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veðrfölnir

Greetings, Haukurth. I added a paragraph to the article on Veðrfölnir presenting a theory by Lindow you might find interesting in case you weren't already aware of it. It's not supported by the original sources but it would make sense if it was true. Cerdic 23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snow

Scratch that. I apologize for my earlier remark; I've been reading too much of a certain arbcom case and I'm letting that get to me. Sorry. My only actual point was that CHILD is unrelated to SNOW. >Radiant< 21:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encarta and "Scandinavia"

Dear Haukhurth, so now I finally run into you, and I have to disagree. :> I've seen a lot of incredibly good stuff written by you! Well, not that this issue is worth arguing about, but the statement that "Scandinavia" is equivalent to "Nordic" in English will need another, more precise reference when you get a chance to look for one, because Encarta's Scandinavia entry is not saying as much as the quote appears to hope to imply. The Encarta entry is quite clear about the fact that Scandinavia is in the first instance a "name applied collectively to three countries of northern Europe—Norway and Sweden (which together form the Scandinavian Peninsula), and Denmark." When the entry continues: "The term Scandinavia is sometimes extended to include Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which are linguistically related to the others, and to Finland, which is not linguistically related," it is not at all saying that the English language is ambiguous or confused about which is which, or about the most common denotation of "Scandinavia" as opposed to "Nordic". All it is saying is that the term Scandinavia is sometimes extended (although with no reference to whom or in which circumstance) to include Iceland, the Faroe islands and Finland. Considering the history of the three kingdoms, I assume the English would find nothing odd about having the term Scandinavia stretching beyond the peninsula to cover the territories the three Scandinavian kingdoms once dominated. However, Encarta is not shy about pointing out that there is a difference in how the terms are preferably applied (prefered as in "by first choice"): Scandinavia is a group of three countries that have historical, cultural, and linguistic affinities, versus Nordic - a group of five countries that are united by geographical and economic factors. I'm sure the usage must be dealt with in more detail in other English sources and encyclopedias, or? Take care and best wishes, Pia 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pia! I'm glad you're pleased with my stuff :) The issue of the definition of Scandinavia in English has been dealt with at some length on Talk:Scandinavia. Here are some sample reference works where I've bolded the crucial parts:

"Scandinavia (skăn'dĭnā`vēə), region of N Europe. It consists of the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; Finland and Iceland are usually considered part of Scandinavia." Columbia Encyclopedia

"SCANDINAVIA: a region of northern Europe consisting of the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway and Denmark; culturally and historically Finland and Iceland are often considered part of this area." — The Random House Encyclopaedia

"SCANDINAVIAN: a native or inhabitant of Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland)." — The Concise Oxford Dictionary

"SCANDINAVIAN: of the countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland in northern Europe, or their people or languages." — Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Some sources include Finland but not Iceland and vice versa. The meaning of the word in English is somewhat flexible. Haukur 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Haukhurth, you're right about the fact that Iceland and Finland are rudely kicked in and out of the definitions on random, all over the place, but not particularly more often in English. But one last observation I wanted to add to that scenario: I don't think it's about different languages and how these languages chose to define the region, as much as it is about the various ways "Scandinavia" is defined in different disciplines in the area. Scandinavia is definitely used in slightly different ways in linguistics (the division between East and West Scandinavian dialects, and the later split betwen North and South Scandinavian dialects, which leaves out Finnish an Greenlandic---the term "Nordic languages" does the same thing). In geography you have the peninsula ideologues calling the shots, in economics and political science the definition is shaped with the idea that money talks and kingdoms rule, and the region is either a brotherhood of economic possibilities and similarities (excluding Greenland again) or an exclusive Kingdom club of three. To me, the ambivalence in the term is therefore not so much a question of established usage in different languages as it is about the direction the wind happens to blow over each political landscape in the area itself. English is just reflecting that gusty reality. Since Scandinavia is not an official, state-sanctioned, cross-border entity, I suspect it will keep being redefined too, in any way it suits the powers that be in each corner of the area at any given moment. That's the reason I thought the KISS principle seemed the most attractive and least POV option in this case. But I trust your judgment to work out any possible kinks with proper referencing, so I'm not worrying about it. Best, Pia 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from StuffOfInterest

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation file

Hi Haukur. I’ve seen that you added an .ogg file with the pronunciation of Björk. So, as I have published several biographies about Icelandic musicians I was thinking that perhaps you could help me with the following names: Magnús Þór Jónsson, Guðlaugur Kristinn Óttarsson and Hilmar Örn Hilmarsson. Despite I’ve been writing about Icelandic musicians for a long time, I don’t know exactly the Icelandic pronunciation, so I would be very grateful if you could help me out. Kind regards, Luis María Benítez 17:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded sound files to the Wikimedia Commons. Haukur 22:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the file added to the biography of HÖH. Did you created the others too? Luis María Benítez 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, check my Commons contributions - or the category of the HÖH file. Haukur 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I saw them. Thanks again, and if there's anything I could be useful with, don't hesitate to ask. Best, Luis María Benítez 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Iceland

Hi Haukur. I've just created Portal:Iceland (Iceland was one of the few European countries that didn't have a portal) and I would like you to have a look. Feel free to contribute to it. Best regards. --Húsönd 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Þjóðólfr of Hvinir

As this article is on the English language Wikipeida, why is this article not entitled Thjodolf of Hvinir? Walgamanus 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You could argue that it should, but that's not where you moved it. The form of the name the article is currently at is the one used in the most recent English language book on the poet. Try going to http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/ and searching for both "Thjodolf of Hvinir" and "Þjóðólfr of Hvinir". To find information on people like this you often have to try several versions/transliterations of their name so ideally our articles should list several of the most common ones. See Skúli Þorsteinsson for an example of this. Haukur 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves

By the way, how do you do a move, if a redirect page already exists for the page you want to move to? Walgamanus 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More moves

Hi Haukur,

could you do the following moves:

or do you prefer I use WP:RM?

Sigo 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all but one version of each so you can do the moves yourself now :) Haukur 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I should add a bit to this. Currently our articles on characters from Norse mythology are quite inconsistently named. I found out the hard way that trying to impose a standard will sometimes get people upset and can lead to fruitless debates about relatively inconsequential matters. Nowadays I tend to only move articles I'm actively working on and leave a talk page comment first. In my experience WP:RM isn't very helpful, it tends to bring in people who don't have much interest in the article as such but are quite willing to argue about its title ;) Questions are often resolved more amicably among people actively working on the article.
That said I will delete redirect histories when they are arbitrarily preventing a move because I don't believe admins should have a monopoly on moves. Haukur 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. "WP:RM isn't very helpful, it tends to bring in people who don't have much interest in the article as such but are quite willing to argue about its title": that’s the way I feared it might be, and that’s why I preferred to ask you first. But isn’t there supposed to be a consensus on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology)?
Sigo 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a guideline, called a vote, advertised it a bit - got a bunch of people to agree with me, some others didn't (and some of them were sockpuppets) and then we slapped a guideline tag on it. Then someone removed it. Then we put it back. etc. Even if everyone agreed on it you would be justified in calling it vague. And in practice conventions like that don't mean so much - next person who comes along and disagrees with it won't pay any attention to it and quote some other convention which says things he likes more. It's just not a very orderly place and it's just about impossible to get a binding decision. Haukur 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes - protection

Hi, please don't reverse my protection of this as a deleted page. (You should really have discussed it with me before undoing my admin action.) This is constantly being recreated as a cross-space edirect. See the deletion log for how many times it has had to be deleted. --Doc 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a deletedpage there is harmful and pointless. I know how often this has been deleted - I've deleted it several times myself (as well as Userbox). If you think there is no longer a consensus for keeping these deleted then take your case to a new deletion review, don't keep recreating the page with metadata. Haukur 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion review? A deleted page? That's crazy. It isn't pointless - it prevents recreation. Please explain how it is 'harmful' - I'm happy to be convinced--Doc 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
While there is a deletedpage template there people who type 'userbox' into that nifty search bar on the left won't find what they're looking for, they'll get stuffed with an irrelevant metadata template. It's perfectly reasonable that people will want to search for Wikipedia-related terms with Wikipedia's search bar and we shouldn't kill that functionality. Haukur 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
But, surely if there is no page - just a redlink, then when people seach for it, they'll get nothing at all. So how is it killing functionality?--Doc 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
They won't get nothing at all, they'll get lots of hits. Try it. When 'go' doesn't yield anything the search bar tries to 'search' and crappy though it is the search will probably get most people what they're trying to find. Haukur 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm, what we really need is the ability to protect a deleted page without having to create a dummy - but that for the devs. The solution at the moment is far from ideal, but I can't see it as particularly harmful either. It is standard operating policy ATM to make constantly recreated pages into protected deleted pages. Perhaps we need to nudge the devs to giving us another option to solve the search problem you outline.--Doc 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a change in software would be good. Meanwhile - the standard operating procedure of replacing continually recreated pages with protected templates doesn't make sense in this instance. The harm done by the deletedpage template is small but the harm done by having a CNR is even smaller (at least that's useful metadata, not menacing and useless metadata). Keeping the page on one's watchlist and deleting it while it shows up is trivial work. Haukur 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright in speeches

I checked with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, there is no justification for reproducing UK political speeches. They may only be reproduced from a direct record (if we were actually there at the time), or under fair dealing (which doesn't apply on WikiSource). Physchim62 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I do however appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 08:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PDUSgovt

All documents produced by the government of the united states are PD - see WP:PD#U.S._government_works. PlaWatch 16:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Indeed. I may have been a bit overzealous in using the 'copyvio' tag on that couple of articles but many .gov sites carry some content not in the PD so I was hoping someone would double-check. And they did :) I also didn't know if we had a specific nifty tag to attribute text to this particular US government website. Haukur 17:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:W.marsh/list / President.pl

I've checked User:W.marsh/list. My name appears twice, at Cuno Amiet and Edouard Vuillard. Which articles use material from president.pl? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After having gone through the first year of my contributions, four copyvio edits have surfaced: Edvard Munch, Edouard Vuillard, Cuno Amiet and Synthetism. One article has been deleted, the copyvio in the other three articles has been removed. If you come across more copyright violations, please let me know. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question about an Icelandic word

Does Sundlaugin mean something like "of/pertaining to a swimming pool"? This dictionary says "sundlaug" means "swimming pool". Thanks. --user:Qviri 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"sundlaug" means '(a) swimming pool', "sundlaugin" means 'the swimming pool'. Haukur 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot. --user:Qviri 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, you deleted my entry for Ron McVan. I will not argue, but can you please advise how I can get the information back for my own references. I will like to see what I put again but am unsure how to view a deleted file. Thanks FK0071a 15:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have done what you asked. Please submit the information. MANY THANKS! FK0071a 16:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to tick a box. Now done. Thanks! FK0071a 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi, Jack Cox has requested an unblock and (at a glance, he came on IRC) seems to be sincere about stopping his plagiarizing ways. I thought you might want to review this one. User talk:Jack Cox#Block. Thanks. --W.marsh 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked him based on his acknowledgment in IRC of what he did wrong - he apparently assumed that simply supplying the source of the copied contents was enough. I'll keep an eye on him, and if he continues with this action I'll reblock him. Cowman109Talk 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that's fine. Haukur 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cirwen

Hi Haukur,

Have you ever heard about that character? Sigo 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Let's try to get that article deleted. It's a fairly obvious hoax but since that's not a speedy deletion criterion I suppose we should do WP:PROD and then haul it through AfD if all else fails. Haukur 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know there was a WP:PROD. Sigo 18:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unifying Old Norse

This is perhaps not entirely relevant to the Wikipedia project, but I think it is worth bringing up here. Today I realized that one should be able to unify Old Norse into one single ideal written normal. As an example, which was what I brought to myself earlier today, consider the Old Icelandic (often synonym to Old Norse) verb søkkva 'to sink', which comes from Proto-Norse *sinkv- (only writing out the relevant stem) through v- (i.e., u-) umlaut of i to y and then opening of y to ø due to the nasal n which gets assimilated into k, i.e., one might have the development (only looking at the stem)

  • *sinkv- →v-umlaut *synkv- →nasal opening sønkv- →nasal assimilation søkkv-

Now, in Old Swedish (and Old East Norse in general?) which had sjunka, one instead had the development

  • *sinkv- →v-breaking *sjunkv- →v-loss sjunk-

The question is now, is it possible to have a compromised spelling for Old Norse? One could make the compromise that the western umlauts should be used instead of the eastern breakings, and that the eastern preserved nasal dissimilations should be preferred. This would preserv the highest degree of information. Furthermore, the non-initial v is used. Thus, one would end up with the idealized Old Norse spelling synkva, cf. Old Icelandic søkkva and Old Swedish sjunka. The problem, of course, is the random choice of western vs eastern features. (Umlaut but no breaking or nasal assimilation.) One could of course have made the complementary choice, i.e. breaking, nasal assimilation and dropped v giving sjukka as result. (Interestingly, sjukka is quite usual in some Swedish dialects which have both eastern and western features.) What preserves information best: Umlaut or breaking? I suspect breaking, but I am not sure. Assuming bearking, one would get sjunkva. (Does the stem søkkv- automatically reproduce Proto-Norse *sinkv-? I think "senkv-" would give the asme result. I know *sjunkv- does, though, since "senkv-" would produce "sjönkv, ö = 'ǫ'.)

What do you think of such a project of finding the "best" compromise between Old West Norse and Old East Norse?

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Inventing a unifying spelling for different languages/dialects is always a fun project :) The basic method is usually to select the common ancestor of two forms that differ - but sometimes that's not a very attractive choice (*sinkv-).
I've been thinking about the spelling of the West-Norse languages lately. Faroese spelling is intentionally designed to be similar to Icelandic - but there are still some choices in it that strike me as strange. For example using 'ey' and 'oy' for Icel. 'au' and 'ey' makes sense phonologically but it seems like a strange concession to phonetics in a spelling that already requires writers to make a heroic effort like placing silent ð's all over the place.
One could invent a spelling for Nynorsk which would make it very similar to Faroese/Icelandic. Of course Nynorsk spelling is already very etymologically based (especially the 19th century variants) but some of its spelling choices seem to have been made to be deliberately different from Danish ('kv' at the start of words, 'namn' rather than 'navn' etc.). Interestingly Aasen used a lot of silent t's and d's where Faroese has silent ð's.
But I'm moving far away from your question. The project you suggest might have some advantages. For example it seems a bit strange to me to give Swedish runic inscriptions in standardized West Norse spelling - and yet this is often done because that's the spelling most people are familiar with. It would make perfect sense to give them in a unified Norse spelling system :) Haukur 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that the phonological spellings ey (< au) and oy (< ey) in Faroese can't be changed into something more etymolgically based. Remember that Faroese ey is a soft vowel (which the spelling au wouldn't suggest) and that oy is a hard vowel (which the spelling ey wouldn't suggest). And I don't think there are any other possibilities. The only possibility I can see is to use eu (<au) which even may be etymological: au > öu > øu > eu > [ɛɪ] ~ "ey". I think that the u in eu actually may be a derounded [ʉ], i.e. [ɨ] (øu [œʉ] >derounding eu [ɛɨ]). So, except for ey and oy, the only possible choice would be eu and oy. (Ironically, e in eu is a derounded i-umlaut of o in oy, which is kind'a backwards.) The Faroese spelling is very amusing, and I find it very strange that people actually started to use it instead of an orthography looking more like more conservative Nynorsk.
I assume that Nynorsk kv is because Bokmål hv is pronunced /v/. In fact, Nynorsk and Bokmål has the same pronunciation rules (otherwise it'd be too confusing), which means that in order to account for e.g. the development hv > /kv/ vs /v/, one must have different spellings for the two languages. Do you think that it'd be possible to define an Icelandic "Bokmål" based on Danish but somewhat Icelandified? In Faroe islands, they have Gøtudonskt, i.e. "Street Danish", which is merely a spoken language, but I guess it'd be no problem to create a Faroese "Bokmål" from this.
Note that, which I may have told you before (look in your archive), I am working on a written normal for Jamtlandic. Linguistically, it's not very unique keeping in mind that it is similar to most "Northern Scandinavian" dialects, but today there is no standard Scandinavian language which is "northern". So, in that perspective there's some linguistic interest to normalize Jamtlandic. A more crucial reason for the construction of a written normal is the fact that the province Jamtland, where it is spoken, historically is neither a part of Norway nor Sweden. In Jamtland, we have - AFAIK - the oldest continuosly existing democratic institution called Jämtlands läns landsting, or Jamtamót until Middle ages. The "ting" must at least be as old as the time when the first jamts settled the province. (Migration period?) The name Jamtamót in itself suggests that the institution is at least as old as the first jamtish settlements.
The standard procedure of using normalized Old West Norse when transcribing and normalizing Swedish runic inscriptions is indeed slightly hilarious. One can easily invent a spelling for the Sueonic dialect Old East Norse which is "compatible" with Old West Norse. One thing though is the umlauts, especially u-umlaut. Did Old East Norse have the u-umlaut or didn't it? It is clear that this umlaut would only affect words where the umlauting u is dropped through syncopation or apocopation. (I think this is called the Tröndish rule since in in old documents from Tröndelag one wrote tonn 'tooth' but mannum dat. 'men'.) As you know, an u-umlauted a was initially pronunced a rounded a, i.e. [ɒ]. This may have drifted to [ɔ] in the west and back into [ɑ] in the east. When á became [ɒː], the u-umlauted a may have been pushed towards [œ]. Well, you probably have more accurate theories on this.
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC))
What I was getting at with the Faroese is that it's already so etymologically spelled that the change I was suggesting, though illogical from an orthophonic perspective, isn't any worse. And the Icelandic pronunciation of 'au' is already not orthophonic. But these are all idle thoughts anyhow. In reality I'd be much more in favour of moving Faroese spelling closer to the pronunciation.
I don't have anything to add to your umlaut ponderings. I think you're basically right. Haukur 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think both Faroese and Icelandic may gain from becomming more phonetical. In Icelandic, I would first like to replace ö with ø. This'd merely be a change of alphabet, but I think it's a good change since the we have reduced the number of diacritical letters. Furthermore, the letters y and ý should be replaced with i and í everywhere. (One has already changed œ to æ which is the phonetically the more open version of the change ý to í.) This would give two manifested diphtongs in Icelandic, ei and øu, where øu is the phonological spelled of the old au-diphthong. Thus, one would e.g. have tønn (< tönn), filgja (< fylgja), dír (< dýr), leisa (< leysa), høukur (< haukur). I would also like to write dn and dl for nn and ll. Thus, fjöll (pl.) > fjødl.
Needless to say, one should also make the changes ang > áng, eng > eing, ing > íng, ong > óng, ung > úng, yng > íng, öng > øung. E.g. langur strákur > lángur strákur, löng stúlka > løung stúlka. (Perhaps you'd really use hár here to describe height.) One already has e.g. alk > álk etc., so why not ang > áng etc.?
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC))
Yes, replacing 'y' and 'ý' with 'i' and 'í' in a Faroese/Icelandic spelling reform is a no-brainer. Perhaps using 'ø' would be slightly cleaner than using 'ö' but I'm not fussed. We can use both 'langur' and 'hár' to describe height but there are slightly different shades of meaning; using 'langur' is slightly negative/slangish while 'hár' is neutral or even positive. The most difficult problems will arrive when you need to reconcile the Faroese dialects into one spelling - in the south short 'ó' is pronounced like short 'o' but in the north it is pronounced like short 'ø'. This is a case where the current etymological spelling actually makes some sense as a compromise (unlike the 'ð' monster). Haukur 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course, in the case of Faroese, the etymological spelling is motivated by the relatively high degree of dialectal differences. In the case of Icelandic, which today due to the extrem demographical centralization to Reykjavík and the already low degree of dialectal differences has practically only one spoken form, one has a greater reason to employ a phonetical spelling. But in Icelandic's case one has the readability of the old sagas in their (normalized) original to think about.
In my orthography for Jamtlandic, I use the letter ð as a silent consonant. Thus, it's not as monstruous as the Faroese ð (which in fact is identical to g in the phonetical sense, but can't be replaced by "nothing" in all instances due to some strange hiatus rules), but it's not "explicit". What do you think about such a reanimation of a phonetically "obsolete" letter like ð? (NB: Old Norse ð is [ð] in some situations in Jamtlandic speech, but then I - like most other people - write it d. For example, Old Norse laðu (acc.) 'barn' I write as ludu in Jamtlandic, since the pronunciation is [lɵðɵ], not "[lɵɵ]".) The letter ð also denotes a "silent" r in e.g. báðn [boːn] 'child' (ON barn); I think that the r > ð actually is etymological since the opposite, ð > r (e.g. bondska síða > säir), is clearly evident insome Scandinavian dialects.
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC))
Thinking about it, there's a unique way of choosing between the western umlaut and eastern breaking when defining a unified Old Norse written normal. Indeed, one should always choose the breaking since it is the most indigeneous phenomenon of the two; umlaut is a general feature of Germanic, breaking is specifically North Germanic. So, choosing between synkva (umlaut) and sjunkva (breaking), one should take the latter. One should choose umlaut only when there's no possible breaking. Sometimes umlaut is not possible, but breaking, and then one of course naturally have a breaking. This would give the first person pronoun jak (< *eka); there's no possible umlaut. (Well, maybe *eka > ęk? where ę is the i-umlauted a in e.g. hęstř 'horse'. Here I let ř denote the special r with origin in Proto-Germanic /z/.)
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. It's my very first one! -- Vary | Talk 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Pitton de Tournefort

Hi. I have replied to this query here. Can you now reinstate the article? Thanks. Smallweed 15:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Sir, I'd like to contest your deletions of articles on several Governors of Massachusetts. Yes, the content in those articles did come from a copyrighted site. However, the prose in them is of a very stripped-down, basic style. It is not florid or literary in nature; it presents facts. While copyright is available for works, no one can copyright mere facts, which is what was reproduced in those articles. In other words, when those articles are re-created, they'll still contain the same facts. So why delete them? Given that only one set of facts exists about these men's lives, what's the alternative for us but to use that information? Biruitorul 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts can't be copyrighted but their presentation can be. And the selection of which facts to include is not trivial. There are a lot of facts about each of those men which were not included in the biographies I deleted, there's not just one unique set of 10-15 facts about each man. And even if there were, there are a million different ways to write a biography containing the exact same facts. Lifting whole passages infringes copyright. Please don't do it. Haukur 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please add a new category on the W.marsh/list

The John Macoun entry under "Apparent mistakes in Brandt's report" should not be listed there. You need a new category, something like "Remote site adds an attribution." There will be more of these. If the "Last Modified" header on the remote page shows a modification later than October 22, then it should be assumed that the attribution was added in response to the plagiarism report. It's a "fix," not a "Brandt mistake." But in these cases, it's a "fix" on the remote site, not on the Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia admins contact these remote sites, some of these sites will add an attribution. If you call all of these "Brandt mistakes," then I will no longer be able to assume that the W.marsh/list is a good-faith effort. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.8 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We just need a category for pages where the other site actually copied from Wikipedia rather than the reverse. The present or absence of attribution on their side isn't a key issue for us except insofar as it helps us identify our own problems. If the current header annoys you then, sure, I'll change it. Haukur 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
On another note, since you're here, I was slightly surprised by this sentence in your (sound and useful) study: "Administrators already make efforts to patrol copyright violations on images posted by users to illustrate articles, but no meaningful efforts have ever been made to detect plagiarism." Well, sure, we do make efforts - but it's a Sisyphean task. You estimate, and I agree, that something over 2% of Wikipedia articles contain plagiarized text - most of those will be problematic under copyright law. But I should think that the percentage of Wikipedia images which are problematic from a copyright standpoint is probably something like 20% (many are mislabelled, many have completely bogus fair use claims etc.) - I'd be interested to know what other admins in the trenches think, I doubt the consensus number would be lower than that. We do make efforts to remove both problematic images and problematic plagiarized text (see e.g. User:Wherebot). My estimate is that our image problem is bigger than our plagiarized text problem. Haukur 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming the section. As a postscript, I just realized that it doesn't even require an inquiry from someone at Wikipedia to alert a remote site that there's something strange about one of their pages. All that's required is for the remote webmaster to notice unusual activity in their logs on one of their pages that no one ever visits, and follow the referrer to wikipedia-watch.org, and get the whole story that way. On the image thing, you may be right. But I've seen a lot of image warning and take-down activity. I looked for information on wherebot, and didn't find a description of how it works. I'm not convinced it's very effective. In any case, it's for new articles only, apparently. That's like closing the barn door after 1.46 million horses are already gone. While patrolling new articles is necessary, what if someone comes along later and drops three paragraphs on the end of the article right from Britannica? You need new article patrolling, and some level of patrolling of old articles that have been newly appended in a major way, and all this presumes that you've already checked the 1.46 million as best you can. I looked for the word plagiarism and wikipedia in the major engines, and there was very, very little (about 20 links in each major engine) concerning plagiarism IN wikipedia. There were hundreds or thousands about plagiarism OF wikipedia, or about wikipedia's own article on plagiarism. My impression is that there has been no organized effort apart from wherebot and now the W.marsh list to ferret out plagiarism IN wikipedia. I just learned about that German wikipedia situation that occurred last December, from the Signpost article, but they're different from the English wikipedia. 216.60.70.8 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, good thinking on unusual activity in someone's logs - that's the most straightforward explanation for why they'd notice. Let me try to compare our image patrolling with our text patrolling.
When someone adds an image and says they took it themselves and are releasing it under some free licence there's often not so much we can do to find out if that's correct. It's very dependent on the contributor - when I add an image and label it you can be pretty sure it's legit and correct. I'm an established contributor operating under my real name and I understand copyright issues reasonably well. But when someone under a pseudonym with just a few contributions and no registered e-mail address adds a supposedly free image there may be more reason to be skeptical. But there's only so much we can do - we can try searching for the image name on Google, to see if the editor nicked it from some website without bothering to change the filename. But if that doesn't yield anything we've got basically no way to find out whether the image is what the uploader says it is (see the publicgirluk episode for a test case). And believe me, there are myriad incorrectly labelled pictures in here now.
With text we are much luckier - we can't search for an image on Google but we can search for text. And we do. When newpage patrollers see articles started with unwikified text dumps they check Google and if there's a hit then the article is gone and something like Template:Nothanks is stuck on the contributor's talk page. This works quietely and effectively. The same principle works for addition of text to an existing article. When I notice a new contributor adding a significant amount of text to an article on my watchlist I get suspicious and check Google - if there's a hit I revert. Now, like most everything else on Wikipedia this kind of patrolling is done haphazardly rather than in an organized way. So some plagiaristic edits do slip through where no-one happens to be looking.
Actually I think plagiaristic edits and incorrectly labelled images go hand-in-hand. I've noticed that the talk pages of the serial plagiarists I've been dealing with in the last few days have typically been chock full of image problem warnings.
As for organized efforts to weed out plagiarism, hmm... I think a part of the reason why you didn't find much when looking for that is that we tend to talk about 'copyvios' rather than plagiarism. The established mechanism is described on WP:CP. When a plagiaristic edit is discovered we do consider the correct practice to be to check the editor's other contributions. Here's an example I happened to deal with some months ago: [21]
In sum I think we have a problem with both plagiarism and improper use of images. Both are dealt with in various ways, sometimes effective, sometimes not, sometimes organized, sometimes haphazard, sometimes manually, sometimes by bots. I think the image problem gets more attention because it is more pervasive and more difficult to deal with, all the work on that may have misled you into thinking we're doing a spiffing job of handling it - I think we're probably not :) We should certainly aim to do better both with plagiarism and with image use. We're probably doing miles better than sites like YouTube but we should aim for near-perfection. Unlike YouTube we're aiming to produce reusable material and it's pretty hard to reuse if you can't even be sure that the copyright issues are in order. Haukur 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Svolder

So when do you plan to submit it as FAC? ;) Fornadan (t) 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully fairly soon :) I still aim to make "Course of the battle" longer and probably split of a "Death of Olaf Tryggvason" section. The lead needs expanding too and then I'll probably submit it for WP:PR and hope someone can help polish the prose a bit. Haukur 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just be carefull you don't get accused for battlecruft ;) Anyway, it might be an idea to give chapternumbers in addition to pagenumbers in the notes section since especially Heimskringla comes in so many editions. Fornadan (t) 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
More obscure battles than this one are already FAs ;) Chapter numbers are a good idea but do you know if the chapter division is consistent across editions? I'm not sure if it is or if it's consistent (or even there at all) in the original manuscripts. I notice that the division into sagas isn't even the same across editions - in the 1899 Norwegian edition there is a saga of Jarl Hákon where other editions I've seen consider it a part of the saga of King Haraldr Greyhide. Haukur 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure, but they seemed to be when I was working with Angus on the Finn Arnesson article. Fornadan (t) 23:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladsheim

I read through the article to try to find the edit but overlooked the interwiki link. My point was that you shouldn't have to hunt to try to determine whether or not an edit was constructive since it may or not always be obvious, though I'm prepared to admit that I may be more dense than most when it comes to the obvious ;) Cerdic 01:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of image from Saddam trial article

On November 6th you removed an image from the Trial of Saddam Hussein article which showed him at the time of sentencing. This was a captured image from the streaming video coverage of the court proceedings which of themselves are a significant event. The licensing cannot be assigned to BBC News as it is just the carrier of a public trial and is acting in the public interest with its coverage. As you live in London, you probably live under some restrictions governing British residents and the licensing of receivers but this was an international transmission and is it legal for you to directly or indirectly censor the BBC and international communications? The removal of the image might be considered vandalism although probably well intentioned on your part. If you think that you have the right to regulate the actions of a British state-owned public corporation and interfere with its dealings with the rest of the world I would have to object most strenuously. But if it is definitely not considered fair use I will defer to you as a Wikipedia adminstrator in this matter. Do you have to get permissions to take photographs in London in the open public? Some areas might be considered restricted even though they allow public access and excesses on the part of a photographer might be considered harassment in some cases but do the same rules apply to open proceedings? --Jbergquist 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why a screenshot from the BBC might be considered fair use

The BBC Charter states,

3(a) "To provide, as public services, sound and television broadcasting services (whether by analogue or digital means) and to provide sound and television programmes of information, education and entertainment for general reception ... within the Commonwealth and in other countries and places overseas (such services being hereinafter referred to as 'the World Service') the Home Services and the World Service together being hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Services'."
3(k)"To provide to other bodies, whether within Our United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man or elsewhere, by such means and methods as may be convenient, services, programmes and materials to be transmitted or distributed by such bodies and to receive from such other bodies services, programmes and materials to be transmitted by stations of the Corporation for reception as aforesaid."
3(u) Subject to the prior approval of Our Secretary of State, to enter into joint ventures or partnerships with other companies and to establish companies whose objects include any of the objects of the Corporation or whose business is capable of being carried on in such a way as to facilitate or advance any of the objects of the Corporation, and to purchase or otherwise acquire stocks, shares or securities of, and to subsidise and assist, any such company.


So it would seem that some services of the BBC are intended as public information. I personally consider the BBC a reliable source of information and I do not see why Wikipedia would object to the information that it provides. FU Counterexample 5 appears to refer to private news services since only Reuters and AP are mentioned and some of their photos are copyrighted and have a photocredit associated with them. The BBC World Service is in the business of informing the world of newsworthy events such as the Saddam trial. The question is whether or not Wikipedia needs prior consent from the BBC for the inclusion of a screenshot within a Wikipedia article. This is not misrepresentation of the BBC or taking credit for something done by the BBC or reported by it. The image captured was of an ephemeral nature and there was no link available for later use in an article. No barriers were in place to prevent a screenshot and so it would seem that it was permissible to do this. If the BBC has control over material used in the image is permission for retransmission needed by some other entity and is this enforcable? It is the state governments of the world that assign ownership rights to property and that includes intellectual property but there is some disagreement about exactly what protections one is entitled to and there is a lot of abuse of privilege that is taking place. The arts and artists in particular a targets of abuse and their work misappropriated by some and attention needs to be drawn to this. But the public has a right to know and be informed of current events which supercedes that of individual whims about what might be for the good of the public. The conclusion that one can draw from this is that some things are permissible to copy while others are not since it would be harmful to the individuals that produce them. It might be advisable for Wikipedia to enter into an agreement with the BBC for the reuse of its material as a matter of public record. If you look carefully at the BBC Charter you will notice that it is up for renewal 31 December, 2006. --Jbergquist 12:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just this guy, you know. As far as I can tell BBC material is no different from that of any other news service as far as copyright is concerned. Apart from that, all I can tell you is to read WP:FU and Wikipedia:Copyrights. The idea is (mostly) to produce material free for all to use - we don't get Wikipedia-specific special permissions. Haukur 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyr and Mars photograph.

Hey, this is my first time on this so be gentle if I do something wrong. In the Tyr and Mars photo you posted there is writing underneath it. I have been trying to decypher it but have had no luck. I have searched the different runes and old germanic languages but I cannot match all the characters. I was wonder since you posted it you would know what it says. Thank you.

It says "MARS edur TYR", meaning "Mars or Tyr" - the names are written with Icelandic runes. Haukur 08:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Jay Gaynor

Hey Haukur, you've got a lot of nerve claiming that I plagarized the content of the article that I wrote about Mayor William Jay Gaynor. I pieced together the information for that article and wrote it IN MY OWN WORDS, citing my references. I'm pissed off that you, a foreigner who KNOWS NOTHING about the history of New York City, has the audacity to delete my hard work and accuse me of plagarism. I DID NO SUCH THING! - 172.162.168.111 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are you User:Mytwocents? Haukur 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Elation! :)

It really is a very happy day! You might consider making Wikipedia an even happier place, by running in the ArbCom elections yourself. ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't commit the time and emotional investment needed to do that job well :) You should run, though, if you feel up to it! Haukur 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning removal templates

The {{wr}} series of templates has been deleted, undeleted, and is now on Deletion review. You may wish to comment. BTW, may be time for you to archive this page. Thank you. John Reid ° 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks
Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Haukur, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairuseold

Hi, Haukurth. I am trying to comply with Wikipedia's image-use policies on Charles Atangana, but I'm still a bit confused. The license you pointed to, {{fairuseold}}, redirects to {{fairuseunsure}}. This one includes the note:

This tag should not be used. Instead, use either one of the more specific tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use or {{fairusein|article name}}.

It seems that this skirts the issue, since the obvious aim of {{fairuseunsure}} is to say "This picture is really, really old. It's most likely in the public domain, but it's next to impossible to determine that." Do you have any idea what gives? Should I ignore the warning and use {{fairuseunsure}} unless I can uncover photographers' names and death dates or dates of first publication? Changing to {{fairusein}} will result in folks crying, "Too many fair use images!", a tolerable fate, but an undesireable one.

Sorry to bother you about this, but any suggestions are welcome. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it's a tough cookie. I would be inclined to use the tag despite the warning as it seems to most accurately reflect the nature of the images. But whatever tag you decide upon make sure you say as much about the images as you know (and is reasonable and relevant). If the book you scanned them from doesn't say anything about their origin then say that. And state within what period of time each picture was most likely taken. Haukur 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the tags per your suggestions. Please take a look when you get the chance and let me know if this is a satisfactory way to handle the issue. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hello, Haukurth. Today I started template:Baltic emporia, to eliminate some listcruft from Birka. May I ask you to look if the place-names are spelled correctly? If I omitted some important centres, please let me know. Over the following days, I plan to add detailed information about the Viking sites in Russia and make a separate template for these. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 15:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, don't you think that our coverage of Viking ring castles may benefit from placing them into a separate category? I ask these questions of you, because I don't know anyone else interested in the Viking Age here. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The template looks nice, I have no objection to the spelling (perhaps the 'ó' in Hólmgard is unnecessary). Unfortunately I know very little about the archaeology of the Viking Age, what I know is mostly literature. You could try User:Berig, I think his knowledge is probably broader than mine. Haukur 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm going to add Lindholm Høje, Kaupang and Dorestad to the template. By the way, could you categorize Skiringssal? --Ghirla -трёп- 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oswald & a request

Thanks, that should be useful. By the way, I have a small chore that I need an admin to do for me. 2004 Haiti coup should be at the title 2004 Haiti rebellion, as it was initially and remained up until a few months ago. I explained the reason why it needs to return to its old title on talk (no responses): "coup" can only accurately refer to the very last act in the drama, whereas the article in fact covers all the events leading up to that, and moreover some people don't feel it was a coup—they say Aristide resigned of his own free will. I think it was a hit-and-run move by someone trying to make a political point (one that I agree with, if I set aside my wiki-neutrality) without giving any consideration to the nature or context of the article (notice the intro still says "rebellion"—the change in focus that occurred with the move was not reflected in any change to the content of the article, so now the title and the article stand in weird contrast). Everyking 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When moving in with my delete button I noticed that the redirect at 2004 Haiti rebellion doesn't actually have a history so no admin action is required.
The substantive issue sounds tough and I hardly know anything about Haiti. The question reminds me of the Deir Yassin massacre debate. Some people prefer Battle of Deir Yassin or Deir Yassin incident as article titles, arguing that the article has a wider scope than the (putative) massacre. Others argue that omitting the word 'massacre' from the title is something of a whitewash and that "Deir Yassin massacre" implies "The Deir Yassin massacre and the events leading up to it". Likewise I can imagine someone arguing that the (putative) coup was the most salient part of the 2004 Haiti events and thus shouldn't be omitted from the title.
But of course it can be annoying when someone makes a move without bothering to bring the article text in sync with the new title. Haukur 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
By God, you're right, I was able to move it just now. I could've sworn I remembered trying that weeks ago and it didn't work. Everyking 12:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very minor translation

Hi Haukr! Great work on the skalds! It inspired me to write an eternal stub on Erpr lútandi. However, there is a small text in Skáldatal that might contain interesting information. I simply don't understand what it means: vá víg i véum ok var ætlaðr til dráps. Hann orti drápu um Saur konungshund ok þá höfuð sitt fyrir. Would you mind translating it for me?--Berig 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Roughly: "Erpr lútandi killed in sanctuaries and was intended for killing. He composed a drápa about Saurr konungshundr and accepted his head in return." Haukur 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Great and thanks! That story is too good not to include in his article.--Berig 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/u/User_talk%7EHaukurth_3af6.html"

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu