User talk:Haukurth/Archive7

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)

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)

Canute

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

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

interpretatio germanica

I think I didn't phrase this very well. This was inspired by [1], 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)

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)

(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)

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)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Haukurth/Archive7, 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:Vishwin60/Userbox/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)

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)

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. [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RfA message

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. up◦land 04:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More naming issues

See Talk:Eric I of Norway

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

Your note

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

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)

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)

MA Pic

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

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)

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. [3] [4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Viking

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

Template:RfA changes

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

If you have some time...

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

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)

Smá greiða

Sæll Haukur, geturðu gert mér smá greiða, og eytt fyrsta útgáfunni af þessi mynd [5] 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)

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)