1

Dear Haldrik: if you can,help me please to make cleanup for this article The Ari Synagogue in Jerusalem,please.My english is not so good for this.And I can translate your article into russian part of WP.Senk you/Ashpaa 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haldrik: In attempt to get things back on track, if it's OK with you, I'm going to archive the whole lot, propose we focus on the text of the article and not on debate of the facts and try to move us on. It is clear to me that Jesus = Joshua = Y'Shua, but no amount of debating is going to change minds. I will try to list the options, then list reasons why or why not we should do one or the other and move us to discuss which will work. I'm going to ask everyone not to get into the debate over the name itself again. Does this work for you? Bob --CTSWyneken 14:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay off archiving the name discussion, but I think the debate over the name is not getting anywhere. You've established that scholars see it that way and no amount of arguing is going to change the others. We'll simply go around in circles, something I have little patience for anymore. Let's lay the issue on the table and let it rest. We should get to what we want the paragraph to look like. I'd appreciate it if you would simply say "Scholars believe that Jesus = Y'hoshua" (see documentation above)" and explain why it must be in the first few words of the article and not later on in the article or in the Names and Titles of Jesus article. Others will make their points and we'll see where it comes out. Personally, I think referents to forms in other languages are confusing to a reader who comes to an encyclopedia without knowledge of that language. I'd prefer to save it for later.

Anyway, it's time this was over so I can get back to documenting, which this debate has delayed. (again) My students are calling... Later. Bob --CTSWyneken 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I'm learning a lot about stuff I always considered "squiggles" - sorry!. It looks like there is consensus to add your information (makes sense to me) so now it's just a matter of where. A short mention in Jesus is probably all that is needed as it is an "overview" article but this does look like the sort of elaboration that should be in Historical Jesus. If it's not there already I would appreciate you adding it as it would be a shame to not have this very valid information somewhere. Sophia^TalkTCF 12:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Haldrik,

The biggest "contributor" to my stress level actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia--it's my physical health (I've got something that acts like rheumatoid arthritis, and today's a pretty bad day). So it's probably just the best thing to do to walk away for a while so I don't allow my own bad temper to interfere with the effort.

Do keep up the good fight, as it were ... but it would make it easier if you acknowledge other opinions, even if you disagree with them. Justin Eiler 16:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your health! --Haldrik 16:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. [1] is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsandwich (talk • contribs)

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever.

Hi, my main interest is Roman Period Israeli archeology. Regarding Jesus, my interest is the reconstructing his ancient context. I am busy, but if there is something specific you would like me to contribute to, let me know, and I'll see what I can. --Haldrik 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one certainly appreciate "reconstructing his ancient context." Who exactly were the Pharisees, Saducees, et al? For that matter, who was Pontius Pilate? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take all further proposed changes to Talk. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how frustrated you get (and I do empathise) it is never helpful to make personal comments about another editor. If you have cooled off a bit it might be a good idea to remove your last post. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 21:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice. I think about this dilemma all the time, about when to be patient versus when to be candid. You are probably right. And I did need to hear it again. --Haldrik 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haldrik, the image you contributed to the community is badly needed to illustrate the equivalent article in the German Wikipedia as well, but I need to be sure that it is under the well-known GNU license. Is it? I did not find any assertion to that, only that it is in the public domain under US law - and that's not enough. --Traugott 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Traugott, correct, this 2-D image of a public domain artwork also falls under the public domain according to US law. If you need a "stronger" copyright usage, you may feel more comfortable to contact the website for special written permission: http://www.aleppocodex.org. The site address can also be found in image description. Haldrik 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving Wikipedia! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Haldrik 02:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are actively editing Palestine. I encourage you to add sources/references to your edits, as these have been lacking in this article previously. Having references would be very helpful here. On another note, please be careful to be as neutral as possible, as this article as it stands right now is about a geographic area, and we have traditionally tried not to insinuate to much politicization in the text by making sure it is not written from the specific perspective of one party or another. Thanks much Ramallite ^(talk) 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude with my reversions but you must be very careful to add sources at the same time that you add any new passages. Although I understand that you are an expert in the area and you are probably used to being able to add such information based on your own observations, here on wikipedia we are only permitted to add something that has already been published in a reputable and reliable source. Also I would appreciate it if you made large changes to the article over the course of many edits, Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article lacks sufficient citations! I'll do what I can to start substantiating the info about the ancient periods. --Haldrik 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as politics goes: Terminology referring to "Israel" seems stronger and more relevant during the Roman Period and earlier. Terminology refering to "Palestine" seems stronger and more relevant during the Byzantine Period and later. During the Modern Period, the State of Israel and the Palestinian Territories make these terminologies complex and highly charged. --Haldrik 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't just break it up between the Roman periods and the Byzantine periods (ironic since there is also some sensitivity regarding those names and when those periods branch) since the province was only named Palestina after the Jewish Revolt in the first century AD, and it was only named that so that the name of the Jews' ancient enemy, the philistines, (who had stopped existing as a people centuries before) would be invoked.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as formal names by government administrations, the Romans only referred to Judea (not including Samaria) as Syria Palaestina. The Byzantines were the first ones to officially use the name Palaestina to refer to entire region (including Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Golan, and so on), corresponding to the modern geographic term "Palestine". Thus, "Palestine" in this wider sense is a Byzantine adaptation (at least officially). --Haldrik 00:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but I still feel that a primary division between pre-revolt and post-revolt would be more meaningful that Roman and Byzantine, perhaps we can note both of the differences.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. The article can emphasize the Roman Period corresponds to the ethnic cleansing of Judea, and the Byzantine Period to the first (official) use of Palestine as a wider geographic term. --Haldrik 21:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Can you update the count when you add one and respond on my talk page. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fun. I was able to add two new languages, and added to some previous languages. :) --Haldrik 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"LOL! Each time I see your name, I think "R Cola"." Well, I drink a lot of RC Cola...

It's just a triply mutated version of my given name, Archie. In third grade, when we were learning cursive handwriting, the loop of the e crossed the bar of the i, and a classmate read it as "Archo." This was my nickname for many years. In high school, for some reason, a female classmate changed it to Archola, and the nickname stuck. I started writing it out like a full name, Arch O. La, after I had been on Wikipedia for a few months.

What's a Haldrik?

Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arch. Fun. Haldrik is a totally made-up name. I used it as a computer handle and for the sake of consistency I'm stuck with it now. ;) The name used to be unique, but I fear, others have adopted it for themselves. --Haldrik 11:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Hal D. Rik. That might remain unique for a while ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I was already typing the answer at Wikipedia talk:Hebrew before you asked the question ([2]). Hope that helps. --Francis Schonken 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Preciate it. --Haldrik 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Hebrew. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Please use the Wikipedia talk:Hebrew talk page instead of always re-introducing the wp:Hebrew cross-namespace link, which is an incorrectly formatted shortcut. --Francis Schonken 09:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are number of technical issues that I'm still trying to familiarize with and sorting out. Your contributions and time are appreciated, and there is at least an attempt to integrate your comments. --Haldrik 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not generally allowed to put links to 'wikipedia:' (= project) namespace pages in wikipedia ARTICLES."

The above policy seems problematic. How can (spontaneous) Wikipedia editors use a standard format if they are unaware of it? I myself have been editing Wikipedia for about a year now and was unawre the Wikipedia:Naming convention even existed. I came across it by accident while Googling the globe a few days ago about another topic. Achieving a standard for Hebrew transcription is notoriously difficult. It requires the consensus and participation (and awareness) of all editors who refer to Hebrew. --Haldrik 11:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you revert the genealogy section? Was it done without discussion? I seemed to have missed it. --Haldrik 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We implemented the condensed version we had been working on for weeks. The discussion is there. —Aiden 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please keep in mind that naming conventions exist for the purpose of creating a standard on transliteration, not trascription. Please consider that before suggesting, for example, that Het should be kh, which is wrong according to every previous transliteration method (academic and otherwise). Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every previous transcription? What about Chet? Chaim, Chanukkah, etc. "Kh" which is non-English for a non-English sound is preferable to "ch" which already represents an English sound. --Haldrik 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For persons interested in using a Heb./Eng. dictionary it is necessary to know the Hebrew cyphers/letters/Hieroglyphs/Sacred glyphs/Hieroglyphs(the little marks that are commonly rendered into words) One of the ABCs is the obvious choice for US. A for Aleph and B for Baht are obvious. There is some choices to be made for instance with Hhayt (with cypher value 8.) If US don't adopt a convention US'll have things like the plethora of "spells" for QLBH(Kabbalah)on WP. For years I used Hh and then saw that C was avaliable for the 8th symbol/Hieroglyph.

Focussing on sounds in languages and not the written non-ambiguity of the writing in Torah is to be hypnotised by "leavened bread." Bread with air--vowels in it. Basic Torah feeds thru the eyes. It is un-aired, unleavened. The stories, garments wrapped about Torah needed many "translations" of the same unleavened formula of Hieroglyphs so vowelling was added.

If one is not motivated to make sounds of which others approve, any consistent mark will bring the symbol to mind. Can anyone provide some verification that "Hebrew," a spoken language, existed before the Diaspora?Johnshoemaker (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you changed some of the transliterations for modern Greek on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek). The old ones, which correspond to the UN/ELOT system, were chosen by consensus, no need to change that. Besides, I don't think Koine Greek is modern, that's meant to be 21st century Greek, as it is spoken today. I'm not sure where to place your Koine Greek addition, do you think it belongs in a naming convention? Same for the IPA, that's already covered by the Greek alphabet article. I'm reverting the transliteration changes, Koine and IPA should be discussed. Markussep 09:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe place the tables in the following order: Modern, Byzantine, Koine, Classic. Koine is necessary. Many ancient documents (including the New Testament) are in Koine, which is distinct from both Modern and Classical. The Koine table may need to distinguish between the "official" Attic dialect and Alexandrian/Judean dialect. Byzantine is so close to Modern, perhaps it isnt necessary. --Haldrik 04:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this information is in the right place here, it's a naming convention. There is an article Koine Greek. Can you give me an example of an article name that would require a transliteration different from the one proposed for ancient Greek? Markussep 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any name of a person or place from the Hellenistic Period cant be rendered in Classical Greek. --Haldrik 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can or can't? I guess most persons and places from the Hellenistic Period have traditional names in English (at least all bible-related names), so please give some examples of articles that would benefit from this part of the naming convention. I'm not talking about transliteration of texts in koine Greek (like in the koine Greek article), that should be covered by the Transliteration of Greek to the Latin alphabet article. Markussep 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, everything Greek from Alexander the Great and later, should use Modern Greek as the standard for naming conventions. --Haldrik 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge over the issue of ancestries is very impressive. Maybe if you have time & will, you can re-edit the section of ancestry in the above article, as it bascially says cannanites are paelstinians and so on. Amoruso 08:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uggh. There is so much disinformation! I wasnt aware of that article. --Haldrik 08:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso, stop spreading misinformation! You will not teach Palestinians who they are, what is their heritage, and what is their history.Almaqdisi 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Palestinians sure arent teaching their heritage. Lies and fantasies are not a heritage. Truth is. --Haldrik 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trusting you to get your academic teeth in that article and fix the misinformation ASAP. Amoruso 05:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Caananites" here are those mentioned in the OT, the "Academy" will first have to reveal a source for the existence of these people that is more verifiable, say one prior to 500BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnshoemaker (talk • contribs) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit to remove vandalism on the Joshua article you reverted not just the vandalism but also a 'disputed' tag which had just been replaced by user Derex after I'd removed it. Do you think then, as I do, that this tag is unnecessary? I'm afraid Derex is getting a bit defensive about it so I'd be glad of another opinion on my side. I was just going to discuss on the talk page though, rather than getting into a revert war.--Spondoolicks 22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the tag isnt necessary any more. --Haldrik 22:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have a source for your contribution to the bonobo article? Thanks. bibliomaniac15 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's "common knowledge" but I added several citations that mention it. --Haldrik 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Michael Laitman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Michael Laitman. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. IZAK 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above. Rather, Laitman is an author of several books and a notable commentator on that subject matter, and mentioned by colleagues. --Haldrik 05:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haldrik: I was actually being kind. You may also need to read Wikipedia:Undeletion policy as well as Wikipedia:Deletion review. He is not recognzed as a "kabbalist" by anyone except the ignorant. It does not matter if he writes a million books, he is a non-entity in the field of Kabbalah. IZAK 05:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me who it is that controls the concept of Kabbalah. I'd love to read his list of "approved" kabbalists who no one else is allowed to disagree with. ;) Just because you or I may disagree with Laitman doesnt make him un-notable. Daniel Matt is a notable scholar of Kabbalah, and he recognizes Laitman as a Kabbalist, at least in some sense. If published occultists can be called Hermetic "kabbalists", I don't see how it's possible to argue that Laitman cant be called a "kabbalist". It's better just to mention what notable critics say about Laitman in the article about him. --Haldrik 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who controls the "concept" of anything? Answer: The true experts and not the quacks. For example, who controls the "true concept" of medicine? Easy answer: recognized medical doctors and real scientists and not old wives in kitchens selling their old wives' tales and formulas to the masses who don't know better. So what is needed then is an article about what he is not and not about what he claims to be. There are no "lists" of Kabbalists because true Kabbalists do not advertise themselves on the Internet - that much is known, they must first be recognized and accepted by the true sages of Judaism who are learned in Kabbalah themslves and none of those have come forward to say anything about Laitman or his self-aggrandizing ilk. Most times the true Kabbalists of Judaism are only known centuries after their death, and Laitman is still around trying to make a buck from his books. Suggestion: don't call it "Kabbalah" in association with Laitman et al, rather say it's something like "Michael Laitman's personal homegrown theories about spiritual concepts" or "What Michael Laitman imagines about things" or something like that. But the second that the word "Kabbalah" is used it triggers the alarm bells in the eyes and ears of people who know what Kabbalah means within normative Judaism. IZAK 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-aggrandizing". I understand the criticism. Nevertheless: "recognized and accepted by the true sages of Judaism", and exactly who might these be? As if Jewish scholars and hasidim agree on which thinkers alive today are the "true sages"! --Haldrik 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted an AfD for two articles together, Goy and Frot. AfD requires sperate entries for each article as the articles have different subject matter. I recognize from your entry that you essentially consider them similar enough to put them together. I think it is likely that others would not agree. Anyway, AfD requires one entry per article.

My apologies for stepping on your toes. Please submit a sperate entry for Frot if you think it is appropriate. Regards to you, Atom 10:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused. Someone else is trying to delete them though, see [3] Atom 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, once again someone is trying to delete it. Please see and respond here Atom 03:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humble and very sincere thanks for your opinion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshua and Jewish Kabbalah --fivetrees 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry. If there's not enough published on the topic for an article now, there will be soon enough. Also, dont forget to use your own User page to compile information. When it starts to shape up, you can move it into a new article then. :) --Haldrik 23:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm in a worry! :)

1. First of all it's funny difficulty to show the obvious fact that White colour is White and I see critique of the article presentation FORM, but do not see any argument concerning CONTENTS of the topic.
2. How to move article to my user page ? Is there such operation or command or tool in Wiki ?--fivetrees 09:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remembered crucial argument for my article. It is in the header. Sincerely Yours--fivetrees 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Sex. It's an exciting new WikiProject which I'm sure has huge potential, but there's a lot of work to be done. So if you feel that you're up to it, please join! Atlantis Hawk 06:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haldrik, I created a stub for Ashpaa here in his user space. I told him I would ask for your help too. Since he's a new editor and English is not his first language he'll likely need our help to get it up to policy standards to get it to pass the undeletion review process. I don't have alot of time now but I plan to edit as I can. Would you mind helping out there? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment asap on Palestinian people and in the talk page here. You're requested to solve a dilemma. Amoruso 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... here [5]? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the Ebionites article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We recently finished incorporating the suggestions of Slrubenstein from peer review. Slrub suggested you would be a good person to work with to further improve the article and get a diverse perspective. Ovadyah 11:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here: [6] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites article passed GA. We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah 16:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jesus (Flusser).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Keep --Haldrik (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word Norse means "Scandinavian" (or even specifically "Norwegian"). Old Norse, i.e. Old Scandinavian/Norwegian, is simply a conventional name for the Viking Age Scandinavian language.--Berig 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sigurd Portal (Sigurd kills Regin).png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard that one before. What's your source? Haukur (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the four stags as the four cardinal points is common. For example, Finnur Magnússon refers to them as such, but specifies they refer to the four cardinal winds: the northerly wind, southerly, easterly and westerly. --Haldrik (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right but I can't find it in FM and haven't found it anywhere else. Could you cite sources in the article? Haukur (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding sources. I must admit that I'm rather skeptical of them since they don't seem to be works by scholars of Norse mythology. I don't currently have grounds to contest them, though. Haukur (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, most of the current scholarly journals online charge money to view them. When I get home, Il try look for other citations. --Haldrik (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon: Nýi ('new', 'new moon', 'waxing moon'), Niði ('down', waning moon?; 'descendent', son; fellow 'descendent', relative), Þrór ('waxing one', 'growing one', burgeoning one),

Earth: Aurvangr ('estate of mud', muddy) Hlévangr ('estate of', protecting plain)

Longevity: Ái (greatgrandfather)

Sovereignty: Álfr ('elf') Yngvi (lordly?, Freyr?) Hár ('high') Reginn ('ruler')

Magic trance, shamanic deathlike-trance: Dvalinn ('the unconscious one', compare Old Swedish dvale 'unconscious'), Dúrinn ('napper', dúrr 'nap'), Gandalfr ('elf of the wand'), Vindalfr ('elf of the wind') Nár ('corpse') Ginnarr ('awestriker', great one, ginn-heligr 'great holy', 'great'; ginna 'to deceive'; deceiver, deluder, illusionist) Finnr ('Finn', shaman) Skáfiðr [= Skáfinnr] ('slanting Finn', elder shaman), [= Skáviðr] ('skew wood', slanting board?) Frosti ('frost') Haugspori ('footprinter of the grave', spor 'footprint') Fjalarr (hider, deceiver) Norðri ('northerly'), Suðri ('southerly'), Austri ('easterly'), Vestri ('westerly')

Knowledge: Vitr ('knowledgeable one', 'sage one', compare 'Kvasir was so sage (vitr), that noone asked him their question which he could not solve') Þekkr ('agreeable', pleasing; 'noticing', 'comprehending', astute, clever) Ráðsviðr ('tree of advising', extraordinary counselor) Nýráðr ('new advising', cunning) Frægr ('famous one') Lofarr (lof 'approval', 'permission', 'praise', praiser)

Magic Artisan: Fili ('?', file?) Kili ('?', wedge?) Hepti ('haft' of sax-knife, 'hilt' of dirk, grip) Hornbori ('carrier of the horn') Eikinskjaldi ('oak shield') Draupnir ('dripper', multiplier of gold) Náli ('needle', bodkin, corpse) Víli ('misery', toil, drudgery, servitude)

Warrior: Þorinn ('daring one', courageous one) Þráinn (yearning one) Dolgþrasir ('tough-talker of hostility', dólg 'hostility', emnity, hate, strife, dólg, 'hostile', enemy, fiend, foe, þrasa 'to talk tough', to rage, to talk big) Mjöðvitnir ('testimony of mead'; poet. wolf of mead) Veigr ('drink'; 'pith', 'strength')

Miscellaneous: Litr ('color', skin color, complexion) Fundinn ('finding', found one) Frár ('swift') Glóinn ('glowing one') Alþjófr ('thief of all')

Uncertain meaning Bífurr ('?') [~ Bif] ('trembling', compare bif-röst 'quivering röst-distance (~7 km)', bifast 'to tremble'), [~ örr] ('swift', 'fast'), [~ vörr] ('lip'; 'oar pull'), Báfurr ('?', grumbler?) [~ Bávörr], Bömburr ('?', swollen?) [~ Bumba 'drum', Bumbur 'drums'], Nóri ('?', corpse?; little scrap?), Án ('?'; 'without'), Ánarr ('?') Hanarr ('rooster'; skillful?) Svíorr (waner?) Lóni (lón 'lagoon'; dawdler?, muddy?) Jari ('?', fighter?) Skirvir ('?'; craftsman?) Virvir ('?'; dyer?)

Later Interpolations: Náinn (nár 'corpse'), Nípingr ('?'), Dáinn (dáinn 'dead one', dá 'trance', deyja 'to die'; dá 'to admire'), Billingr ('?', twin?), Brúni (brúnn brown, brún eyebrow), Bíldr ('lancet', blood-letter, spike), Búri (burr poet. son)} Dóri (borer), Óri (raving), Dúfr (snoozy?), Andvari (careful)}

Just wanted to let you know something I stated on the talk page of the Sexual intercourse article: "Came back to this section to state that I have now broadened the scope of the term sexual intercourse, which clarifies how it biologically and traditionally means coitus, but has broadened to include anal sex and oral sex (at times, anyway). However, sexual intercourse is still not widely defined as every type of sex, thus that is still made clear in the lead, with my pointing out outercourse. Anyway, the lead should now be satisfactory to all."

I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Offset-square grid.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The offset-square image is my own work. I supplied a more helpful image with explicit copyright notification for public domain. --Haldrik (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You renamed Jotun to Jötunn. Excellent.

Would you do the same for Norse dwarves to Dvergr?

Dvergr is already a redirect page, so Im not sure how to change Norse dwarves to it.

--Haldrik (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it should be called Dvergr? As opposed to Dvergar (the plural), what seems to be what the article is currently using as bold-faced term in the lead? Shinobu (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment here (and then look at the main article and check the translation please)? Please? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Y-chromosome haplotype.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notification about the fact that you've been mentioned by myself at [7] regarding your conduct at the Norse dwarves article. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is problematic in a number of ways but it boils down to information that isn't backed up by sourcing provided. Quite clearly, Roca & Johnson say the opposite of what you claim. This sort of reckless academic dishonesty won't be tolerated. If it continues, you'll find yourself on a very short leash. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly, you cant read. The vowel is a central vowel. Haldrik (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can read. I've also read Roca & Johnson, the source you cite. It doesn't say what you claim it says. You've been here a while, so you should know better. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me butting in, but Ausoes, it appears that I'm not the only editor who disagrees with things you defend in the articles you contribute to, and who has noticed the personal attacks you are occasionally apt to make. In view of the extensive discussions you and I have had on and offline over the past 7 months, could it possibly be that your comment about reckless academic dishonesty might eventually be a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps if you both take a calmer view and look again at the texts you are citing you may be able to reach a more amicable compromise. After all, we are all only volunteers here, and anonymous to boot.--Kudpung (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my initial approach. As you can see here and here, where I revised the General American and English phonology articles, respectively, to incorporate information that speaks to some phonetic nuances of the strut vowel in that accent. More sourced information is welcome, too, since the articles are both quite sparse in that regard.

In response to your second question: no, I am not guilty of misleading citations. I stand by my assessment of Haldrik's attribution to Roca & Johnson and am willing to defend it if need be. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the only linguistic research I can conveniently access, is what is available online, which is surprisingly poor because university journals tend to have draconian restrictions and prohibitive prices. Apparently, only other libraries are customers. The only exceptions to the rule are certain foreign universities who publish their online journals free for the sake of science and information sharing. Thank God for them. In any case, the citation I referred to cites the Harvard publication, that clearly notes how the strut vowel is almost always a central vowel except for a handful of specific local dialects, and is usually realized as open-mid or near-open. For British English it is always a near-open central vowel. That is the only point I make, and the reason for the citation. Haldrik (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Harvard publication are you talking about? I have access to a few linguistic journals through my local university, so I may be able to get ahold of something you'd like.

Keep in mind that there's a distinction between central and centralized. My understanding, based primarily on Roca & Johnson, is that few English dialects have a cardinal [ʌ], though the realization may be very close to it, which justifies using <ʌ>. It's a similar case with /u/. Most dialects have a centralized vowel, but some of them (such as Australian English) have a much more central vowel so that <ʉ> is a more phonetically accurate choice. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the point. American English NEVER has a cardinal [ʌ] phoneme. There isnt any justification for using it, except tradition. In fact, the American strut vowel usually isnt 'very' near /ʌ/. It is always more central and usually more open, and the IPA added more vowel letters that can now represent it more precisely, namely /ɜ/, albeit the American vowel is midrounded and more open. Even if it is slightly to the back, the American vowel is a central vowel, relative to the rest of the vowels. It is wrong to use the symbol for the unrounded back vowel <ʌ>. To say, Americans pronounce the midrounded putt in the exact same way as the rounded pot - except their lips change slightly - is highly confusing because these vowels are nowhere near each other! The vowels are way different. That is why linguists use the central <ɜ> symbol to describe the actual American sound. Admittedly, with regard to the relative American vowel system, the strut vowel seems to exist somewhere in the quadrant between ʌ, ɜ, ɐ, and ɑ. But it is certainly not like /ɔ/ pot and therefore NOT <ʌ>. Haldrik (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is that cardinal [ʌ] is the closest point to the American vowel. Which linguists use <ɜ> to represent the strut vowel? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, strut is quite far away from [ʌ], for the same reason it is far away from [ɔ]. Haldrik (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an editing conflict before I could finish. Here is the rest of the point. With regard to the citations that are available online, here is one in full. Tho I compared it to a number of different sources to verify the accuracy. It refers to British English but compares American English. The citation 'Harvcoltxt' refers to the various publications of 'Harvard Reference'.

"Before World War II, Received Pronunciation had phoneme IPA /ʌ/ as being phonetically close to a back vowel IPA [ʌ] ; this sound has since shifted forward towards IPA [ɐ] (a Near-open central vowel). In American English varieties, the typical phonetic realization (e.g. in Ohio or Texas English) of the phoneme IPA /ʌ/ is a central vowel that can be transcribed as IPA [ɜ] (open-mid central). Truly backed variants of IPA /ʌ/ that are phonetically IPA [ʌ] occur in Newfoundland English, Philadelphia English, some African-American Englishes, and (old-fashioned) white Southern English in coastal plain and Piedmont areas. [Harvcoltxt|Thomas|2001|p=27-28,112-115,121,134,174] Despite this, the symbol IPA <ʌ> is still commonly used to indicate this phoneme, even in the more common varieties with central variants IPA [ɐ] or IPA [ɜ] . This may be due to both tradition as well as the fact that some other dialects retain the older pronunciation. [Harvcoltxt|Roca|Johnson|1999|p=135]." [8]

The main point is, the only American dialects that actually use a *back* vowel is Newfoundland (!), plus certain local or ethnic communities, like the city of Philidalphia, certain Black Americans, and certain 'old fashioned' White Americans who live in Piedmont! Thats it. All other Americans use a CENTRAL VOWEL! The citation even refers to Roca & Johnson to explain why the back-vowel symbol <ʌ> continues to get used, even tho it is wrong.

"Despite [virtually all British and Americans use a central vowel for the strut vowel phoneme], the symbol IPA <ʌ> is still commonly used, even [for] the more common [dialects] with central [vowels], IPA [ɐ] or IPA [ɜ]. This may be due to tradition as well as the fact some dialects [still] retain the older pronunciation. Harvard Reference: Iggy Roca and Wyn Johnson, ''Course In Phonology'', 1999:135."

It should be noted, the IP Alphabet didnt even have symbols for the central vowels til relatively recently. Many English linguists still dont use one of these more accurate symbols because of the sacred cow of archaic scholarship or else reference to vestiges of the archaic pronunciation. Haldrik (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The link you cite is a copy of Wikipedia's Open-mid back unrounded vowel article. Harvcoltxt is a reference to {{Harvcoltxt}}, a template that uses the Harvard referencing system. As the Wikipedia article states, [ɜ] is a possible realization in a number of American dialects, but it does not state that this is the case for General American. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says, most American English dialects 'typically' realize strut as [ɜ], and similarly, linguists often wrongly use the symbol <ʌ> even when transcribing the 'more common' American dialects that actually have a central vowel [ɜ]. Haldrik (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we both agree the article needs better citations. If you currently have access to online library resources, please research the problem yourself and return with your findings. In short, your assumption the strut vowel really is a back vowel is wrong: it really is a central vowel [ɜ], and the use of the symbol <ʌ> is a sacred cow - wrong but inherited from historical linguistics. I challenge you to investigate the problem. Haldrik (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not making an assumption. Roca & Johnson say: "The last vowel we shall examine in this section occurs in words like hut, up or cuff in GA and in Scottish English. It resembles [ʌ]... The English vowel is, however, slightly advanced vis-à-vis its cardinal counterpart, hence [ʌ̟]..." (p. 185). On the next page, they say "Confusingly from a phonetic perspective, this RP sound [ɐ] is still usually transcribed with the symbol [ʌ], like its backer and higher GA and Scottish counterpart." (emphasis mine). According to these authors, it's central in RP and back (or advanced back) in GA.

First, it should be noted, in terms of the absolute values of the Bark scale, the American strut and the British strut are almost exactly the same. Thus in absolute terms, the American strut is almost exactly the same as British [ɐ]. It is only their relative positions visavis the other vowels of their respective vowel systems that create the illusion of being more or less open, or more or less back. (In absolute terms, the American vowel is only slightly to the back of British butter but slightly to the front of British fast.)

Re your citation, the main contrast between American and British strut refers to the American and British vowel systems. The British strut vowel cannot properly be called an 'open-mid' vowel because it is clearly a near-open vowel and is at the same level of openess (or 'lowness') as an other near-open vowel [ɑ]. Thus the open-mid <ʌ> symbol cannot be used, even tho British linguists continue to do so as a convention. The American situation is different. The American strut vowel cannot properly be called a 'back' vowel because it is nowhere near the position of [ɔ]. As you know, /ʌ̟/ = /ɜ/, and <ɜ> is the more accurate symbol to transcribe the actual sound of the General American dialect. Haldrik (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't promise anything as far as research. I have some other projects that I'm already working on. Either way, it's just a minor phonetic note, so it's nothing to get worked up about. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do if you can. I tried hard to locate good info on the internet, and was shocked it was so lacking, despite the importance of this kind of information. Seriously, how many humans on this planet struggle to learn English? All of them need to know how to pronounce this vowel right. Haldrik (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With some humor, notice. You accused me saying, "Quite clearly, Roca & Johnson say the opposite of what you claim." The truth is, they say exactly what Im saying. I say the American strut vowel is a 'central vowel', [ɜ]. Meanwhile, Roca & Johnson say the vowel is '[ʌ̟]'. But remember, modified symbol [ʌ̟] = unmodified symbol [ɜ]. Haldrik (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fronted from the back, is the same thing as center. Haldrik (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ʌ̟] is an advanced [ʌ], which is not the same thing as central. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Bark scale objectively shows, the vowel 'but' is fronted ('advanced') very far from the back vowel pot. The vowel but is in the center between bet and pot. Haldrik (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were talking about Roca & Johnson. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where Roca & Johnson refer to a fronted back vowel, it means a central vowel. Haldrik (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it seems you are no longer interested in serious discussion. Haldrik (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't mean a central vowel when Roca & Johnson refer to an advanced back vowel. They place it on a vowel quadrilateral in a clearly different place than the central vowels. I'm not sure what will convince you — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to convince me it is a back vowel? LOL! Roca and Johnson would have to stop calling it a 'fronted' ('advanced') back vowel, other linguists would have to stop describing it as a central vowel, and the Bark scale would have to stop showing objectively it is clearly a central vowel. Haldrik (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm asking you what would convince you that it's not central in GA. I've already provided a source that says that it's backer than a central vowel, but that doesn't seem like enough. I understand that you don't have access to resources, but you shouldn't then pretend like you have the answers. Your generalization is just plain false. Linguists don't typically describe it as a central vowel in GA. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to prove, 'American English' doesnt include 'General American'. For example ...

In the Wikipedia article for the Open-mid central unrounded vowel, it says clearly,

[ɜ] as in "[bɜst] bust" is "the most common realization of the vowel transcribed as < ʌ > in American English."

The wiki article cites the linguists, Ladefoged as well as Johnson, to support this. Obviously, 'American English' includes General American. Yet *all* the common dialects of America also pronounce the phoneme as a central vowel, including Western, Urban Southern, Texas, and so on, which is why it refers to the 'American English' dialects, and not just the General American standard or 'neutral' dialect. American English includes General American and pronounces it as a central vowel. Haldrik (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I speak the General American dialect. And I know it is a central vowel! Haldrik (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know? Everybody speaks General American. :)

Heh. I was under the impression, you were one of the 'old fashioned white people who live in Piedmont' who actualy use a back vowel. Haldrik (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no I speak California English, which does indeed have a central vowel. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-*chuckle* California dialect? So thats why you dont know what your talking about. :P Haldrik (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)ʮ[reply]

I try not to base things on my own impressions. Native speakers aren't very good at determining the phonetic particularities of vowels. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Haldrik (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, neither of those sources is available online. I'll have to put them on my list of books to check out the next time I visit the library. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll have to put them on my list of books to check out the next time I visit the library." I appreciate that. I will too but I expect not to be at the university til autumn. LOL! If you do that, itl pevent an edit war. Haldrik (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, post visit. I didn't find the Ladefoged book, but Thomas (2001) was available. Here's the relevant quote: "The most widespread variant of /ʌ/, as in cut, is one that appears on the midline of vowel plots. It is probably best described as [ɜ] because it is more central than back." (p. 27)

Unfortunately, we can't take from this quote--which refes to all American dialects Thomas covers--any definitive information about General American since there's no guarantee that GA is perfectly representative of all said dialects.

However, I think what Wells (1982) says of General American (p. 470) is important here: "Obviously, GenAm is not a single unified accent. But as a concept referring to non-eastern non-southern accents, the label has its uses." This strikes me as odd since that means that my California dialect (which is not marked by southern or eastern features) is part of GA.

This might prompt a slight reword of the explanatory note under the vowel chart at General American and perhaps even a move of that vowel to the center column, but we shouldn't change the symbol used for it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Actually, I care more about the location in the center more than the symbol itself, so that seems an ok solution. Heh, whatever goes there will require explanatory notes! Haldrik (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im glad to see the wiki articles now generally note [ɐ]≈[ʌ] in American English. Haldrik (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, welcome back! From your edit history, it looks like you haven't been around a lot lately. I do want to make one friendly observation, though. It looks like you're making a lot of consecutive edits, tweaking typos and wording after you've submitted. If you use the preview feature instead, you can get things refined without risking someone seeing or trying to fix your incomplete masterpiece. It also makes edit summaries a lot easier for other editors to read. Compare: [9] [10] (I do tend to let things slip a bit when it comes to my own userspace, but I hope nobody else is following or editing there.) Anyway, thanks for your contributions! —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Il see what I can do.

The Original Barnstar

Bonjour, Haldrik i' m writing a book (160 pages, 300 pictures) in France about hemp agriculture…(alimentation, paper, textile, ropes, bio-dièsel, construction, isolation, médecine, religion, etc...) Is it possible to illustrate it with the picture of : Iyesus Kristos (Jesus Christ) according to the traditional iconography of the Ethiopian Church (17th-18th c. Ethiopia). Image from Black History by John R. Moore found on : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Iyesus_%28Ethiopia%29.jpg Is this picture in the public domain ? Or can i have your authorisation to use it…  Have you maybe an high résolution version ? (i will write your name under this photo) Thank you for your help…  Jah-ova (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you or are you not this IP: [11] ? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, don't want to answer? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk)

This kind of thing is unacceptable. Please discuss the matter on the talk page or seek dispute resolution (WP:DR) but attacking other contributors in article space will lead to blocks. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to block you, but per WP:3RR I'll have to if you don't stop reverting. Please make your case the talk page like I asked you to. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for to include edit warring , attacking other editors and editing while logged out, as you did at Dwarf (Norse mythology). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Tiptoety ^talk 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haldrik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was undoing drastic vandalism by an editor with history of POV vandalism - who did “move” without discussion and without consensus. I feared wikipedia.org content had been lost irrevocably, and was asking for help. Haldrik (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Also, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTVAND. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. I'm hoping this was just a mistake, but if it was not consider yourself warned not to do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I accused you inappropriately. Your edit did not add any content, and just deleted my comment, therefore I thought it deliberate, and not an edit conflict. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the discussion closed after you made the accusation. Im unsure how to defend myself from it. Haldrik (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you would need to at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your Talk, I explained why I need to. Haldrik (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haldrik (talk · contribs)! I haven't e-met you before. I've been trying to see what kinds of edits you made to the Elf article and form my own view on how helpful they were, but it's quite hard because you don't provide summaries of the changes you make in the 'edit summary' box. I'd be grateful if you could do this for any future edits so we can work more effectively together. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alaric. I am glad to see you take an interest in the Elf article. I enjoy your serious contributions.

[I responded to you in your talk page but repeat the content here for the sake of completion.]

With regard the unfortunate situation, Bloodofox is a cyber bully with a history of harassment and abusive editing. Even here is massive deletions rather than line-by-line considerations evidences his nonacademic agenda and aggression. He works persistently to delete and censor scholarly information that he dislikes. I had a bad experience earlier when he succeeded in renaming an other article without consensus and in a way that destroyed its history and information. I was unfamiliar with the administration of wikipedia, and the admins didnt seem to understand how the old article was destroyed. Heh, meanwhile I was in a panic. Please, help undo any future POV damage by Bloodofox.

Anyway, I look forward to working with you and others to try make the information about the Elf solid and nuanced. It is an important and fascinating topic. Haldrik (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Haldrik (talk · contribs)! I just noticed that back in January last year, you added some material to the etymology section of the elf entry:

Compare descriptions such as ‘swan white’ to describe the beauty of fair complexion. Norse cultural values view masculinity as an ideal of beauty, which the Alfr personifies. For example, the Norse Eddas similarly celebrate the male beauty of Baldr. Icelandic Sagas celebrate the beauty of the cliff giants (bergrisi), and certain warrior kings that descend from them. Modern Scandinavian folklore celebrates the male beauty of the Fossegrim and the Huldrekarl/Huldrekall, nature spirits comparable to nymphs, but masculine men. By contrast, British cultural values tend to downplay male beauty and only emphasize femininity as an ideal of beauty. For example, angels are unambiguously masculine in ancient biblical texts, yet because of their beauty, modern British artists often depict angels as feminine. Ultimately, beauty and luminosity are identical. In the Norse Eddas, the radiant beauty of Baldr is the light of the daylight itself. Likewise, in medieval British poetry, the supernatural beauty of biblical Judith is described as ‘elf shining’ (ælfscinu), a magical beauty that shines an aura of light.

I can see that it's elaborating on what I've already written, so thanks for seeking to develop it. At the moment though, this material doesn't have references to scholarly sources. Also, although I can see that there's something to the comparisons you're making here, they're also perhaps more lengthy than is necessary in an encyclopaedia entry (and some aspects are covered later in the entry). So I suggest deleting this passage -- with thanks, though, for your work here! Alarichall (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard McWilliams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard McWilliams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Richard McWilliams (Actor).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haldrik. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Offset-square grid.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Genital sex and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Genital sex until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]