User talk:Bloodofox/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cryptozoology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to McFarland

Living dinosaur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to McFarland

Sharon A. Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to McFarland

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cryptid Whales

Ha! The "Snooky" line is based on an April Fools Day prank. Look at the date. --tronvillain (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC) tronvillain (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Great catch! Unfortunately, hardly surprising with the state of so many of these articles. I’m thinking that we should be keeping track of these incidents as we encounter them. They’d be good for the essay to demonstrate the patterns editors working in these corners can expect to see. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Name Calling"

Hello BoF, Just wanted to apologize for not getting to you sooner and explain myself. The reason I haven't get back to your question sooner is this, I have been very busy working on a college film project of mine that is due this week and I haven't been on here because of that. I still need to finish this project so it might take longer for me to respond. The other reason being that I don't get any notifications on people replying to my comments on the noticeboard so I might not have seen anything. What I meant by "name calling" is making claims that users (including myself) are threatening you even though I and several others have explained that we were not threatening, merely warning. Looking back I probably should have said Undue Claims rather than name calling. That's all I was meaning. Hopefully that answers your question.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Warg

Hello BoF. I was dismayed by your high-handed dismissal of my additions to the page ‘Warg’. The article as it stood presented the Warg as simply a type of wolf featuring in Scandinavian mythology, with no mention of outlawry. I share your joy in Wikipedia and likewise your joy in Germanic mythology and Indo-European studies and so was delighted to come across the Warg page, knowing that I could contribute material from the Gerstein paper in ‘Myth in Indo-European Antiquity’ which - as I implied in my edit - seems to me to contain a wealth of fascinating information. I’m sorry if I departed from the ‘encyclopaedic tone’ in praising the article - which, I grant you, was probably out of order - but is that really grounds for such blanket condemnation ? I had taken considerable pains to weave the information from the Gerstein paper into the fabric of Wikipedia with a variety of links to other matters of interest e.g. ‘Homo Sacer’ and ‘Feldgeister’. I find myself wondering if you take exception to Gerstein’s presentation of evidence of sinister / negative aspects of Norse deities considered in relation to the Warg. Are you a follower of Asatru : do you consider negative portrayals of gods in the Germanic pantheon to be disrespectful, or even blasphemous? Surely the mythological texts themselves include such negative portrayals : what about Lokasenna ?

Hello, the diff to which you’re referring contains significant editorializing, as I mention in my edit summary. Please see Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines on neutrality (WP:NPOV). I don’t have a problem with Gerstein’s paper. While I only vaguely remember it, I recall it to be an interesting contribution that should receive mention on relevant Wikipedia articles (such as a future rewrite of Wikipedia’s Tyr article). The issue is the manner in which you present it. On Wikipedia, we can’t declare a paper to be “illuminating”, for example. That said, you shouldn’t feel like you’ve wasted your time—as you’ve brought this to my attention, I’ll take another look at your edit and see what I can do to bring it in line with the site’s standards here soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Bobo

Looking into that "Bobo" section of Cryptid whales, I think I've found enough on "Bobo/The Old Man of Monterey Bay" to justify removing it from the article (essentially nothing seems to support describing it as a whale), but also enough to potentially create an article on the creature as a piece of local folklore. I'll see what I can piece together and see what you think. --tronvillain (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds interesting and thanks for putting in the time. Wading through the muck only to hammer out a quality article is really the best that can happen to these entries. I'll be glad to look it over. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The 12-pound gorilla in the room

I considered leaving your 12-pound gorilla factoid in place, as I'm sure it would eventually citogenicize its way into a reliable source and turn Beaman Monster into one of the more interesting cryptid stories. –dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for catching that! Definitely glad to see the article getting more attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite a response...

I saw you thanked me for my edit on the article "Yahweh". I actually wrote quite a lengthy explanation for that edit on the talk page for the user I was reverting. I probably wrote way too much, but I thought I would let you know just in case you might find my explanation interesting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tribe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Primitive, State and Brill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Sorry to see you get dragged into this Ayurveda thing. There are some editors apparently really attached to that statement simply because it's often repeated, as opposed to the well established existing antiquity of the practice. --tronvillain (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. There's a lot of this sort of thing out there related to this subject, as you may have encountered elsewhere. Reining it in can be a bit tough, but it's got to be done sooner or later. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Living dinosaurs

As you've probably noticed, the RfC finally closed in favour of a disambiguation page. I'm not entirely sure about keeping the Partridge Creek monster on there, but it seems to fit the definition pretty exactly and have more general notability than the other "living dinosaurs" out of A Living Dinosaur? (the last of which is now at AfD). Anyway, I'm curious to see if you think it needs any tweaks. --tronvillain (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and I agree. I'll give it a look over. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

KOSkol monster

can i use this source? https://books.google.com/books?id=dG2sBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT746&lpg=PT746&dq=lake+koskol&source=bl&ots=HxdNXP4flE&sig=RUkQU0-YN7O03hdleYAi3JkPh14&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtr6msu5zcAhUnHDQIHfKhC6AQ6AEIejAN#v=onepage&q=lake%20koskol&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. For what do you intend to use it? Additionally, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your messages. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

For the Lake koskol Monster. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would personally look for something more comprehensive. Tertiary sources (dictionaries, encyclopedias) are generally best used as directories for further research and have a tendency to introduce inaccuracies unless written by specialists. I recommend trying JSTOR or seeing what you can find on Google Scholar. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Red link categories

Bloodofox, you had not added a Category:Burmese folklore to the Burmese gray wild dog article. You added a red link category which you were not planning on creating. Check its history. Dimadick (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Considering that I frequently create categories, “which you were not planning on creating” is a curious observstion. In all seriousness, I hadn’t realized it was a red link, and I’m glad you brought it to my attention. Thank you for that. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	People don't seem to send barnstars much these days! But here's one from me :-) Thanks for a lot of hard work bringing a scholarly edge to Old Norse topics over the years. Alarichall (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Alaric. Glad to have you on board with the project! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ad: Rusalka

I don't think so, myth (if is alive) is a part of theology; in this case, a theology of Slavic Native Faith. In this light, it should be in Category:Slavic paganism and it should contain this information in lead. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Myth is a genre of folklore, regardless of time or place. Feel free to add something about Slavic paganism in the lead (as long as it's well sourced in the text body, per WP:LEAD), but adding sentences that read like 'apples are fruits and plants' isn't helping anyone. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Cressie

Recently cleaned up, and something you may want to put on your watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks for putting the effort in. I've made a few adjustments, including adding a WP:Folklore template. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Shuswap Lake Monster is next, when I get a chance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I'll take a look at it now. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rusalka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samodiva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review for Brownie (folklore)

Hello! I recently rewrote the article Brownie (folklore) and have nominated it for "Good Article" status. I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing it, based on your keen interest in and knowledge of folklore. I do not foresee many problems with this article, but you have been around here longer than I have and I figured you might have some helpful suggestions. I noticed your statement on your userpage that you are no longer involved in the Good Article process, so, if you do not have time to review it, that is perfectly fine. I just thought I would go ahead and ask anyway.

I also wanted to note that I did see your suggestion on my user talk page and that I have not forgotten about it. I started to draft an essay on the subject, but I have not written very much, nor have I saved it on the site yet. I do not usually write essays and usually focus on writing articles, but, since this is a subject I deal with frequently and which relates to many of the issues I have frequently encountered here on Wikipedia, I think that writing an essay for this particular issue would be beneficial. I will let you know once I have something written worth showing to you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, another user just opened a review on it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, I’ve been away. I’ll read the article today. While it looks like another editor will be performing a former review, I’d be glad to provide some feedback. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Category: Cryptozoology

Somehow the category Cryptozoology hadn't been a subset of the category Pseudoscience since May. Might be worth keeping an eye on. --tronvillain (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I'll be sure to add it to my list. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your continuous efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Alarichall submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Bloodofox to be Editor of the Week. This editor has been active on Wikipedia since 2005, and in the early years did some foundational work creating articles to do with Old Norse mythology (conveniently listed on their userpage). Over the long term, though, Bloodofox has earned this nomination through the diligent curation of material to do with Old Norse mythology and related topics, and folklore. Bloodofox works hard on templates, categories, naming, and redirecting. A 2007 barnstar (also on the user page) praised Bloodofox's 'valiant efforts to keep irrelevant, unsourced and subtrivial material out of our articles', and this remains apt. Bloodofox's chosen areas are particularly challenging for editors because they attract a lot of unscholarly contributions. Indeed, at times they attract actively pseudo-scientific editing: Bloodofox has, for example, worked hard to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of Cryptozoology and related pages distinguish clearly between scientific zoology and folklore/conspiracy theory. Bloodofox is therefore very active on talk pages (accounting for about 30% of edits this year), and spends quite a lot of time undoing things (average edit size is -137.4 bytes). This is thankless work and is hard to do well, sustaining the quality of Wikipedia while not discouraging good faith contributions. I should say that Bloodofox has at times defended my work, for example here, and that someone once complained to me about them -- but as far as I could see the complaints were groundless. Bloodofox has sustained a firm but fair approach to exercising their rollback rights and they have certainly had a big effect on the quality of their area.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Bloodfox's Own Work

Bloodofox

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning August 19,2018

Active since 2005 creating articles and curating material about Old Norse mythology, related topics and folklore. Hard work on templates, categories, naming, and redirecting. Keeps irrelevant, unsourced and subtrivial material out of our articles. Bloodofox has worked hard to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of Cryptozoology and related pages distinguish clearly between scientific zoology and folklore/conspiracy theory. Bloodofox spends time undoing things to sustain the quality of Wikipedia while not discouraging good faith contributions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore member, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies member, Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture member

Recognized for

over a decade of active participation

Notable work

Improving articles about indigenous beliefs, practices, culture, and values of the Germanic peoples

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, —Paleo Neonate – 22:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it ironic that I was Editor of the Week before you, considering you have been doing this for thirteen years and I have only been doing it for just under two. Then again, the "Editor of the Week" award has only been going on since January 2013 and it sounds like you were more active during the early years of your time here than you are currently, which might help explain that apparent paradox. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thanks everyone! What a very nice thing to log in and find. I certainly appreciate the feedback, and it has been wonderful to work with you bunch. We're doing a great thing here, and I'm lucky to work alongside you folks in improving Wikipedia! It's true that I was more active in article-building in the early days, and that lately I've focused on more systemic issues, as Alarichall notes above. I intend to get back to that level of productivity in time, but please keep in mind that I'm always glad to help out with assessing an article or to supply feedback where any of you might need it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Badgering

It is clear that your constant and incessant raising of list of List of cryptids‎ for deletion by the back door (with multiple merge proposals taking place over months, anbd multiple boards) is banging to exasperate other eds. This is beginning to enter the realms of wp:tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition stop commenting on eds on article talk pages, this is not what they are for. Nor should you assume you know what motivates objections to your suggestions, this is a borderline adhomenim and may well violate wp:nap.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That's rich! :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

One was on a users talk page, not an article. One was not made by me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Really, Slatersteven. First, I'm not nearly so scary that you have to tip toe around proposing conspiracies regarding me on other user's talk pages—you can just bring your concerns directly to my talk talk page in the future. Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at regarding "by the back door", as I didn't propose the merge. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

True you did not "propose it", just said that changing it to a redirect to crytozooolgy was a good idea [[1]], when the discussion was about what to include in the list, and not its existence.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I did say that, and I still agree with that statement. What's your point? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That you are still banging on about the same damn thing if given half an opportunity. Thus badgering, you are not letting it drop. But that is all I will say for now, and just ask you to stop this tiresome campaign against all things Crypto.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Slater, I get that you're angry that a pet topic of yours is receiving scrutiny, but there are better ways to express it than this sort of rambling on my talk page. Doing the leg work to actually find sources that meet WP:FRINGE requirements would go a long way, rather than taking every tortured position you can to avoid the need for them. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As requested There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoology on Elasmotherium

Hi Bloodofox, I noticed your efforts to clean up cryptozoology on Wikipedia. While this doesn't exactly fit the problems you've found with cryptozoologists and folklore, parts of the article on the extinct Elasmotherium appears to have been hijacked by the theory that the create survived to historical times and is reflected in stories about unicorns, etc. I refer specifically to Elasmotherium#Possible historical witnesses. I am not really very well trained in the topic, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention to see what you think should be done about it. For instance, it's rather odd that the article nowhere states when mainstream science believes Elasmotherium went extinct.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Eremnich. Thanks for the notification, I'll give this a look over. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

After looking this over, it appears that you're correct. I've removed the section and left a note on the article's talk page. Good catch! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, some of this appears to have spilled over to unicorn, where I've also removed it and left a note on the talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Germanic categories

Hi, Bloodofox. Congratulations on being made Editor of the Week. That one was certainly well deserved. I've given some thought to the earlier discussion at my talk page regarding changes at Category:Germanic peoples. As you said back then, Category:Germanic tribes is indeed too narrow to cover all the articles currently contained at that category, while Category:Germanic tribal groups is a quite unnatural term. I'm contemplating merging both of these categories into an all-encompassing Category:Historical Germanic peoples, which would be a subcategory of Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe. Would that be a better solution? Krakkos (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Krakkos. Thank you for the kind words and for reaching out to me. I think you're on the right track. In my opinion, you might consider "ancient Germanic peoples" in this context. While there's room for ambiguity in "ancient Germanic peoples", the phrase is a bit less ambiguous than "historic Germanic peoples". Either would be an improvement. I appreciate you taking the time to work on these categories. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You should probably be aware of this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give this thread a read over. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Týr, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brill, Garm and Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

infobox

why did you remove the infobox i added? Drake 567 (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see discussion. Additionally, as I said in my summary, your infobox additions are misleading, inaccurate, and redundant. Please refrain. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ghost Ship of Northumberland Strait

Seems like folklore written as something real: Ghost Ship of Northumberland Strait. If you have sources, drop them on the Talk page, and I'll get to it when I get to it ; ). Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded the lead a bit, but I think we definitely need to take a look at the sources. As you know, in these cases, claims of uniformity are often greatly exaggerated in the article spaces. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Theosophy

Just wanted to get your opinion on a closed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Theosophy a Religion? It has me for delete, a "not notable but keep", a "keep with no restriction on future merging or other refactoring", a "keep or merge to Theosophy" and a keep. I'm thinking of trying a bold merge given that the author never even participated in the deletion discussion, but I'm not wrong in thinking that nothing there really establishes notability, right? --tronvillain (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice—I'll give it a look over here soon. I've found topics relating to theosophy to be particularly tricky to handle, myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles on Theosophy are great, but I think using a single article by Blavatsky to construct an immense essay on the topic of her article is another matter entirely. --tronvillain (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bloodofox. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Bloodofox! You created a thread called Merge Proposal Open Since August at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Muspelheim Edit

Hey there Bloodofox,

I'm fairly new to wikipedia. So I apologize if this isn't the best way to get in contact with you, but I was really curious about your recent edit to the Muspelheim page. I'm a student editor for the page, and based on my research. A good bit of the information there was fairly accurate. Has new information come to light or is a total rewrite just necessary? I just wanted to make sure I'm not adding bad information when I do contribute. Rvayyy (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rvayyy. The material I've removed consisted of numerous issues. For example, there are no "prophecies" in the Prose Edda (nor anywhere else in the Old Norse corpus), the concept of the Nine Worlds requires discussion and context, nowhere in the corpus are Surtr or Sinmara said to "rule over" anything, and so on. The rest of the article remains unreferenced beyond the shallow etymology. The article simply needs to be rewritten from scratch. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Bloodofox. Thanks for your explanation. It really makes a lot of sense after reading it. I'll try and be more careful with reading and editing articles in the futrue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvayyy (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind greetings, Ealdgyth. A fine Yuletide to you and yours. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ... hubby and I will be celebrating Yule for him later in the month... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

PAs.

OK [12], from wp:npa "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing; see that policy for more detail.)".Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the diff. In this case, no one has accused you of anything other than avoiding WP:RS, which you're attempting here. Without WP:RS, the site turns into a farm of exactly what I described, and it seems obvious that you're hoping to open the flood gates. Fyunck has stated his position on global warming "alarmists" (as he called them), and various other editors have lobbied off site to bring in cryptozoologist editors to the list (some of whom have sent me anonymous threats). Meanwhile, you're aiding and abetting them, whatever your background. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If that is what you think OK, I am asking you to not question my intentions again or try and dismiss my opinions in the was again. "The use of primary sources, therefore, is not forbidden at all; one might say it's unavoidable - as unavoidable as quoting from any text by astrologers or alchemists in the aforementioned context.".Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice try, but WP:RS still stands. As two other users there note, the RfC was not about the validity of using this particular cryptozoologist as a source. Open up an RfC if you want to try to get around WP:RS.

Alternately, you could stop wasting your time and the time of others and simply track down some reliable sources. Of course, they might not exactly be rosy about the subculture, but you know that. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No one is coordinating [13], Please AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Black Sun

Hi bloodofox,

I made intensive about the alledged mural. I guess you mean the Hamburg-mural painting.

There is no internet-reference to the mural. Even if it existed, it does not mean any evidence for the name black sun.

It is proven that the name "black sun" was only used 50 years after the end of the NS-era. There are several German sources which state this! Especially the official Wewelsburg museum publications.

Furthermore the statements about the original sun-weel incrustation are not very acurate.

I would be greally reateful if you would leave the corrected version.

Greetings!

Hello—the article's lead makes it clear that the symbol derives directly from the SS mosaic, and that it became known as the "black sun" due to the influence of a popular novel in 1991. The lead is a summary of the article, which is fully referenced in compliance with WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Rope

Please read WP:ROPE. A good strategy for dealing with persistent bad editing can be to pull your thumbs from the dike and walk away. Once the flood gets deep enough, some other editors will come along and clean up the mess. Moreover, if you give the bad editing a chance to flourish, it will become really obvious and thus, easier to convince people that it needs to be fixed. You risk getting overheated in your defense of Wikipedia and could get sanctioned for how you react to people. Please avoid falling into that trap, which has nailed many otherwise good editors over the years. Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Jehochman. I'm glad to see this topic getting more attention, and I appreciate you taking the time to take a closer look at it all. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

reply

I was accused of deliberately deleting … something, so I'll reply here. Please don't use terms like conflating if we are going to chat about this, it just seems loaded and dismissive. Some cryptids deserve articles or mention based on fact and I haven't even begun to make my mind up about this one, I'm interested in edge cases and want deeper insight than the formulation cryptozoology = pseudoscience = cryptozoology. Classifying local knowledge as folklore suggests to me that advancing this discussion with a culturally common frame of reference may be difficult, so I'm happy to leave it at that. However, you took the time to reply and air your view, so I wanted to do you the same courtesy. Best regards for the new year, cygnis insignis 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem about the accidental deletion. It happens. As for cryptozoology, I recommend checking out some of the items I recommend reading, particularly regarding how folklorists and biologists have responded to cryptozoologists. While folklorists talk about cryptozoologists every now and then, it's usually biologists that end up mentioning the subculture, as they've sometimes encountered them in the field or at conferences. Donald Prothero has a lot to say about encountering Young Earth creationist group-funded cryptozoologists bumbling around in Africa, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I just came by to apologise about that, I've flagged it at the tools page. Fairly sure it was resolving an edit conflict, because it just pops open a frame in the page and I would not be able to access other content it if I wanted to. And LOL at that advice of Prothero, the article reminds me I read about him in some Gould essay. I'll follow up your suggested reading, not to enthusiastic about re-entering that particular discussion, a shitty note on my page sees me refocusing on other things. cygnis insignis 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a fascinating topic that could definitely use some more eyes. I think there's a study to be done here that focuses on how articles promoting the pseudoscience managed to escape scrutiny for so long on the site (e.g. compare old vs. current ). happened to escape scrutiny on the site for so long, or at least a wiki essay. Enjoy your weekend! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some good news, there is already going to be an improvement emerge out of this [14] I was hoping to persuade my new pal of the merit of AGF without proof, hope he is not too disappointed with the outcome :P cygnis insignis 22:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear about the improvement! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Revenant

Before and After. You might want add it to your watchlist. Not that you need more articles on your plate ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Lucky. I appreciate you catching that—that article had somehow escaped my watchlist. I'll take a closer look at it. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick note

At the DRV and AfD discussion on Dingonek you've probably been making it harder for people who agree with you than anything. It seems like you have a lot of passion for the area, but a number of comments have been, or at least virged, on being personal attacks. My understanding is that you are strong contributor elsewhere. I know that we can all get riled over things but I'd suggest that toning it down a bit might be the best way forward. Take this with a grain of salt and please realize I'm honestly trying to help. In all cases, best of luck. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Xactnorge

Hello Bloodofox. I wonder if you couldn't give a look through the contributions of User:Xactnorge. He has been making strange additions to various articles, taking ancient and medieval sources that equate various peoples, gods, concepts, etc, literally and often adding the info to articles in which they are not relevant. For example, he has been trying to add the equation of the Getae with the Goths to various articles, and I just removed a bunch of strange information equating Thor and Heimdall with various figures from Sif. I've reversed a number of his additions, but I suspect that an actual expert on Norse mythology should have a look through as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ermenrich! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've noticed some odd edits from said account in the past (which I've reverted), and I'll take a closer look through the user's edit history now. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Stellar's Sea Cow and Cryptozoology

Hi Bloodofox! I just wanted to make you aware of what may be some questionable sources used in the Steller's sea cow article under the section "Later reported sightings". Willy Ley and some books with "Cryptozoology" in the title appear there.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, thanks for bringing this to my attention. It appears that you're right that some fringe sources have slipped through the gate and made their way on to the article space. Looks like we definitely need to take a closer look. @Tronvillain:, @LuckyLouie:, @Dlthewave:—care to review the sources on this FA article with us? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the Eberhart mentions and started a discussion over at Talk:Steller's_sea_cow#Fringe_Sources:_Eberhart_and_Ley. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norse cosmology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Irish elk

Hi Bloodofox,

I was wondering if you might check out the "Cultural signifance" section of Irish elk. It looks like a bunch of highly outdated sources and possible OR and synth to me, particularly the "folklore" part.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ermenrich—good catch on this one. I have pulled the obvious undue emphasis on fringe stuff, but disentangling the folklore section will take some more time. I'll need to dig up the most recent source and take a look at what it says. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

System or systems?

Hi. At this move log entry, you wrote moved page Aarne–Thompson classification system to Aarne–Thompson classification systems (The article seems to have been under the impression that there is one system, but there are in fact two. The current article seems to describe just one system: The Aarne–Thompson classification system ... is an index ... . The system is named after its creators ... . The system understands folktales as ... . The system is an essential tool for folklorists. ...

Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the singular form is the correct title. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is in fact about two indices, the tale type index and the motif index. One index can be used without the other. The question is then whether secondary material considers the indices to constitute two separate systems or a single system. @Alarichall:? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks the pinging me! Sorry, yes, the inappropriate article name is my fault: the article has always mostly been about the Aarne-Thompson-Uther Tale Type Index (system 1) and made only brief reference to Thompson's Motif-Index (system 2). Meanwhile, Thompson's motif-index was already better covered under Motif (folkloristics). So I consolidated the stuff about the motif-index under Motif (folkloristics) and put a hatnote at Aarne–Thompson classification systems. But I hesitated as to what title the article should have and stalled. Therefore:

Is this all okay with you, :bloodofox: (and everyone else)?
The name of the article should probably now be updated to Aarne–Thompson–Uther classification system, due to Uther's creation of the now standard revised version in 2004, with Aarne–Thompson classification system(s) redirecting there. How does that sound?

Alarichall (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alaric—it would seem to me best that we either have one article discussing the two systems or two article explicitly outlining that there are two. If Aarne-Thompson classification system only covers the tale type index, wouldn't you agree that's a bit confusing for readers? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping the ball here. I scratched my head about this issue for a while myself. But personally I think it's helpful to represent the tale-type index and the motif-indices as separate systems on Wikipedia. (1) The first edition of the tale-type index by Aarne predates the motif-indices; (2) the tale-type index only covers Eurasia, whereas Thompson's motif-index has since been the basis for (and, in its second edition, has partly incorporated) motifs from a lot of other regions; (3) correspondingly, the tale-type index and the motif index can be and often are used separately. I note that French, Icelandic, Spanish and German Wikipedias treat the ATU index separately from the motif-index (a sample of the languages, based on which I read best) -- though that doesn't mean that they necessarily have arranged things the best way. I really don't mind if you'd rather put the stuff about Thompson's motif-index back into the ATU article though! Alarichall (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Alaric, you are of course correct here. I think most of the issue is that these articles need major restructuring and rewriting to dispel any confusion. I would love to see these articles rewritten, as I consider them to be high-priority articles (our folklore article also badly needs a rewrite, in my opinion). I'd be happy to collaborate with you on these, if you're game. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms

Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms has been nominated for merging with Template:Anglo-Saxon paganism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism

Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism has been nominated for merging with Template:Germanic pagan practices. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Death in Germanic mythology

Template:Death in Germanic mythology has been nominated for merging with Template:Germanic pagan practices. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Woman in Black (supernatural)

Newly-minted article has some issues. Any folklore sources you can recommend or can add to it would be appreciated. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Did some reorganizing on it, cleaned it up a bit. -LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and for taking care of this article—I've been meaning to take a close look at it, but I have unfortunately not had much time to do so lately. I'll put it at the top of my list! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thorn of evil, grandfather

Hey, Bloodofox, do you remember me? I was editing articles about Norse myths on Croatian Wikipedia, and I'm grateful to you because your edits helped a lot to me. Odin's grandpa, Bölþorn, is one of my favourite jotnar, maybe because he has an interesting name, although we will never know why he was named such. Thank you for finishing his article. :) Hoping you are well! Wish you a beautiful summer. -Miha (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back—I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the article! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My sources + folklore

The books which I cited on mapinguari were written by degree-holding zoologists, and many of them are used elsewhere on Wikipedia for other articles. Cryptozoology is not a subject which attracts much mainstream attention, so you're not likely to find many "academic" sources for information. Then again, having said that, the two articles by David Oren which I cited come from Edentata, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by IUCN. As you cannot possibly argue against their value as reliable and academic sources, I'm not really sure what sort of sources you expect to be added. Did you even bother to check my sources? I also made sure to add the words "allegedly," "supposedly," etc. to everything stated about the mapinguari and its claimed eyewitness.

The cryptozoology articles are already full of unsourced, blatantly incorrent information, and cannot be improved if your obstructive behaviour continues. Also, you failed to remove the notice requesting that the page be re-written: since you have undone my rewriting, you should put the notice back on the page. Thank you.

Just as I went to post this, I noticed that you replaced the WikiProject Cryptozoology banner with a banner for WikiProject Folklore (You have also, for some reason, gutted the article's lead and removed the lead image.) The point of cryptozoology, and what makes it distinct from any study of purely mythical creatures, is that there is real scientific debate over whether its subjects are real or not, and what they might be if they are real. Insisting that this is pure folklore as opposed to cryptozoology is insinuating that the Indians and rubber-tappers who claim this is an actual animal are all liars. Furthermore, if you regard the article as folkloric in nature, why on earth do you want academic zoological sources?

"Juma" is mentioned in Oren's peer-reviewed article, which you for some reason regard as less reliable than a newspaper article. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we have a lot of academic sources on cryptozoology over at cryptozoology. These sources make it quite clear that reliable sources consider the subculture to push pseudoscience such as Young Earth creationism while angrily rejecting academia (the latter a factor in the subculture since its foundation). Please comply with WP:FRINGE and stick to WP:RS. This is an article about folklore, which doesn't mean that it's entirely, half, or not at all true, but it does mean we turn to folklorists and other specialists rather than pseudoscience and fringe perspectives. As for reliable sources outside of the pseudoscience sphere, please be sure that you're accurately citing them. The NYT article you used does not mention many of the things attributed to it (such as the nation of Bolivia!), and therefore should not be cited as a reference. Please ensure that the references are accurately employed. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"Rejecting academia"? Nothing like removing peer-reviewed academic sources from articles, then? Now you have removed the etymology of the name, which was based on a totally non-cryptozoological source. Why? Also, the mapinguari, be it folkloric or otherwise, is said to be an animal. That means the opinions of zoologists are appropriate. And I was not using the NYT article as a source, I was using the sources which you removed (nor did I add any information about Bolivia, the removal of which I agree with). --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm rewriting the article from scratch. Again, please check your sources and please ensure that they in fact say what you claim they do. Finally, and most importantly, please keep the fringe stuff out unless it's relevant enough to receive discussion in a WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything I wrote was included in the sources I added, all of which I consider to be reliable and academic, as they were a mixture of peer-reviewed articles and books by zoologists. You may consider them "fringe views," but remove fringe views entirely is to destroy the neutrality of the article. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, cryptozoology is fringe, and your cryptozoologist sources are by no means reliable. Rather than waste my time and your own trying to convince me that a square is a circle, please find better sources, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You still have not explained your removal of my peer-reviewed, non-cryptozoological, IUCN-published sources, and of my peer-reviewed, non-cryptozoological, etymological source. Please explain yourself, or I shall simply re-add the information based on the peer-reviewed sources (but not the zoological books), knowing that I am in the right. Thank you. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Due to the previous version's false attributions, I've simply removed it all and started from scratch with reliable sources. Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Since that is not even close to being an explanation, I intend to re-add the information based on the academic sources to the page, though it might take some time for me to rewrite. I do not expect it to be removed. Thank you. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Again: Accurately cited reliable sources are welcome. Fringe isn’t. Add more fringe material and expect it to be removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your co-operation. I have re-added information based on Oren's publication in Edentata, and on Velden's publication in Revista de Antropología. And my sources were accurately cited before you gutted the article, by the way. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community effort. If you wanted to add that information, you might have done it yourself quite easily instead of just removing all the information (and I did, in fact, include the publications, just not the page numbers). I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to point this out or to add the page numbers, since it's seems obvious that now you're just being deliberately obstructive, and no doubt you'll find some new excuse to revert the edit. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mapinguari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siren (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Bracteate image

I see that a Wikimedia image you contributed appears as figure 7 here. Nice job! Alarichall (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Good to see these old photos still getting use! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your name

Am I supposed to understand your name as Blood of Ox or Blood of Fox? Toad02 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer, although it only contains one "f"! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Purport vs. Report

From the text, it's pretty clear it's reports that were made to either the Department of Conservation and Land Management (a government department in Western Australia) or the Mystery Animal Research Centre of Australia (perhaps sounds dubious, but the article is using data published by Conservation Science Western Australia Journal, which is a government owned journal if I'm reading correctly, so I don't think there's any Reliable Source/Verifiability problem here).

"Purported" has multiple similar definitions in dictionaries, but includes

to pretend to be or to do something, especially in a way that is not easy to believe

Cambridge English Dictionary which is a pretty non-NPOV connotation. "Claimed" is probably equally fine as "reported", both just mean the person told someone that's what happened. They said they saw a Thylacine, they claimed they saw a Thylacine, they reported they saw a Thylacine - these all sound pretty equivalent to me. Like, everyone can agree they said it, regardless of whether they think the person saying it is telling the truth, lying, or just mistaken. For what it's worth, the source uses "report" Wily D 18:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

From the sounds of it, it seems that we should be taking a closer look at these "reports", as this is often a backdoor for pseudoscience into these articles, particularly when entities such as the "Mystery Animal Research Centre of Australia" are invoked—doesn't sound reliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That, of course, would be original research. The government of Western Australia takes it seriously, Parks & Wildlife Service of Tasmania was sending park rangers on serious searches based on reported sightings at least into the 1980s e.g.,, and the Australian government is happy to say There have been hundreds of sightings since 1936 in it's species profile/endangered animal data base - and indeed, calls them reported sightings even in cases where they're confident they're clearly misidentifications, peer reviewed scientific journals take it seriously (such as Conservation Science Western Australia). The National Museum of Australia uses "claims" - serious scientists take at least some of the sighting reports serious also, Richard Dawkins ;). Wikipedia isn't a place for you to try to score a personal blow against cryptozoologists, it's a place to neutrally and balancedly represent what reputable sources say about a subject - and here, all of them agree there have been a lot of reports of thylacine sightings, but that are not sufficient to make them confident thylacines aren't extinct. The government of Australia has spent money on searches, the World Wildlife Federation has spent money on searches, they take the reports seriously. Just because you don't like or don't believe the reports, is no reason to substitute your judgement for what reliable sources tell us. Wily D 14:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You know, if I had a dime for every time some cryptozoologist, climate change denialist, Young Earth creationist, or whatever (or some combination, typically) decided that my invocation of WP:FRINGE and demands for reliable sources (WP:RS) stemmed from some supposed 'dislike' for their particular subculture, they'd at least have bought me dinner. Obviously, my concern was that the maps where this language was used seem to be poorly and dubiously sourced. If you had any familiar with my editing history, you'd know that I regularly write about claims of 'sightings' with reliable sources. Your eagerness to play this card only tells me that it's important that I take a closer look at what these maps supposedly represent, which has indeed turned up numerous poor sources, and for that I thank you. Usually, bullshit like this is just wasting my time. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aarne-Thompson-Uther Index, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism

Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism has been nominated for merging with Template:Death in Germanic mythology. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seeress (Germanic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ganna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		We have had many disagreements over the years, but I wanted you to know that I respect you for what you do. You have high standards for content and you try to hold articles on Wikipedia to those standards. Over the course of your time here, you have made many excellent contributions to articles on Norse mythology and folklore. More recently, you have done excellent work in trying to combat the POV-pushing of supporters of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. I think your contributions warrant some appreciation, so I am giving you this barnstar. —Katolophyromai (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Katolophyromai! I'm always glad to work with you, and I appreciate the work that you do for the project. Here's to crafting many more great articles in the future! :bloodofox: (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Svartur Völva Death Curse Barnstar

The Svartur Völva Death Curse Barnstar

I award this Barnstar to Bloodofox for their bravery in facing the Svartur Völva Death Curse. -LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully this barnstar will not find common use. Here is a list of some possibly helpful (and stylish) minerals: [15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with a good oldfashioned tinfoil hat? Bishonen | talk 15:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC).

Could work. However, the spell-caster should consider the Law of Threefold Return. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks—I appreciate the humor, folks. May the ancient seeresses have mercy on her. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ozark Howler

Hey, I made a bold edit on the Ozark Howler article, and wanted your opinion as you have edited this area. From 2019, the article has been highjacked by fringe proponents. Before I reverted this was the article [16]. There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources that discuss this subject. It was apparently a cryptozoological hoax that seems to have fooled many in the fringe communities. Is the article worth keeping? There is a serious lack of reliable sources on the topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yikes—good catch! Seems this one was off my radar. I've since rewritten the article by way of the single reliable source the article provided. The question is now whether there are sufficient reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. LuckyLouie (talk · contribs) & tronvillain (talk · contribs), you've both been down this road quite a few times now—any ideas? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

After 3 minutes of searching, I could find no WP:FRIND books or web pages that would prove useful, just various degrees of crypto and hype POV. A Google news search shows the subject has a little traction in mainstream coverage [17], so it probably passes notability. The question is, is it enough for a stand alone article, or should it be an entry on some List article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I had the same results. I think it probably fails notability, although I haven't had a chance to do a JSTOR search on it yet to see what turns up. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I searched on ProQuest and got 10 hits. I searched on newspapers.com and got 54 hits. In both cases Springfield News Leader is the first hit. It printed a couple of pictures alongside a quarter-page 2015 article. Haukur (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Haukur raises a good point—we should be checking these newspaper archives more often. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Howler in the flesh: [18] Haukur (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Æsir–Vanir War

Hello, I'd like to ask you what parts of my edit, excluding the speficication of the stanzasa, which I reverted in my second edit, did you refer to as misinformation. I added Bellows' opinion on the two stanzas and added his translation of the others. Eladabudi (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Belated response here). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Talkback Æsir–Vanir War

Hello, Bloodofox. You have new messages at Talk:Æsir–Vanir War#Reversion of my edits.
Message added 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eladabudi (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about undid edit

Greetings Bloodofox, I see that you recently deleted one of my previous edits on the article Phoenix (folklore) by considering my change a WP:RS fail. I respect your commitment to Wikipedia but the source I added has been used as a reliable footnote on Wikipedia before. In fact the people who translated the the book which the link was attached to even have their own Wikipedia articles dedicated to them (see Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer). Also the original reference was linked to a not very notable website containing the information, however if you look at the new version I made, it is linked to Google Books. It would be nice if you let me bring back the edit or if you change it yourself. Any rewording can be done if you please. One more thing to add, it's funny that in the section above you already had a discussion about a Gnostic-related subject with the Odin's eye article. Maybe that means you think my edit was also related to the website titled Gnostic Warrior which seems to be an unreliable source, nevertheless that website does not own the term Gnostic. Gnosticism was a religion that originated in the Middle East during the Christian age, not having any ownership to the last-mentioned. Suitably it is has been confused with the term agnosticism as well. I'm telling you this because you might not know what the religion is by thinking I am using scripture from Christianity or Judaism which are not the same as Gnosticism. If you really want to see proof that the pheonix is mentioned in its literature get this book here or read the online version here, if you feel like doing all the research. No it is not another interpretation of the word chol. The Gnostic Bible is not the same bible that is used by Christians and Jews. I did not mean to take the references you removed from the Odin's eye article and put them in my section on this page, that happened automatically. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.Prana1111 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Prana. The source you'd like to add is self-published and fails WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. There's no shortage of reliable sources on the topic of gnosticism out there—there's no need to turn to fringe material. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Odin's eye

Have you seen the relatively new article Odin's eye? Looks like there's a lot of questionable stuff there to me, check out Independent scholar Moe Bedard^[1]. believes that there is correlation between Odin's one eye and the Egyptian symbol, the ‘The Eye of Horus’. The Eye of Horus, also referred to as Wedjat, was a symbol of protection, royalty, power and health.^[2] Horus loses his eye in battle with his usurping uncle, Seth however it is recovered and restored, also symbolising new life. This act restores the Egyptian line of succession, also symbolises new life and new beginnings. Both the lost eyes of Odin and Horus represent sacrifice, healing and restoration. While Horus offers his eye for the resurrection of his father, Odin offers his eye to protect his people from the impending Ragnarok, the prophetic destruction of his home, Asgard lead by Surt.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I had not seen this article—thank you for bringing it to my attention. A glance at the article's references shows a lot of WP:RS violations, and the article itself looks to me to be a WP:SNYTH and WP:OR violation more broadly. It needs to go, definitely. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could nominate it for deletion? My own attempt has run into some sort of definitely not bureaucratic roadblock and I don't have time to learn the long-form procedure right now.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a fine example of Wikipedia's GUI being stuck stuck in about 2005. I'll see if I can put a little time aside, but the big challenge with a lot of these processes has often been them attracting a lot of non-specialists (the project still lacks folklorists) who have no idea what they're talking about, but are all too happy to slap a vote on it, so color me skeptical. Ideally it'll just be a redirect. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Continental Germanic Mythology

Hi Bloodofox,

Someone has just translated the German page for Continental Germanic Mythology, which adds a lot of new content. Unfortunately, none of it is sourced inline (a problem I often see with articles on German Wikipedia and a reason I've always been reluctant to edit there). Since you're sort of our resident expert on the subject I was hoping you might have a look. I'm more of a heroic legends kind of guy (and one day I'll actually write an article about them!).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ermenrich — thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've gone ahead and reverted those changes, and will try to bump up expanding the article with the usual reliable sources in hand. I find that tends to be all I can do to keep stuff like that happening again. Which is good, of course—we all benefit at the end of the day—so the only problem is just making the time for it right now (maybe I can soon?). Looking forward to your work on Germanic heroic material — it's definitely a very under-covered topic here and more generally, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.

This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out.

==

Emicho's Avenger (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Trout Lake Monster

Looks to be another local legend written as if WP considers it could be real. I’ll get to it eventually, but you may want to review it sooner. -LuckyLouie (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good—I'll give it a look-over now! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind greetings! May your yuletide season be one of wonders. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, time sure does fly! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Buster7:! Happy holidays to you and yours as well. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Early Germanic philosophy

Hi! Certain users are advocating the deletion of Category:Early Germanic philosophy because it has few entries. The category was recently created, and contains only Hávamál and Sigrdrífumál. Are you aware of additional articles that are relevant to the category? Early Germanic philosophy is largely based upon the chapter Ideals and Patterns of Thought (pp. 153-166) from the book The Germanic People (1960) by Francis Owen. Are you aware of additional sources covering this interesting subject? Might there be more suitable titles than "Early Germanic philosophy" for this category? Wishing you a happy Yule. Krakkos (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Krakkos, You might consider a look at The Well and the Tree: World and Time in Early Germanic Culture by Paul C. Bauschatz and/or When the Norns Have Spoken: Time and Fate in Germanic Paganism by Anthony Winterbourne.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ermenrich! I will certainly take a look at those sources in the future. Krakkos (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, folks—only now able to take the time to look into this. It looks like the category was deleted, however. I think it's tough to make an article on this without a bunch of solid secondary sources that explicitly use the phrase "early Germanic philosophy", and I am not sure how many of them are out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I eventually reached the same conclusion, and applied for deletion per WP:G7. There appeared to be more sources available specifically on Old Norse philosophy, so an article on that subject was created instead. Feel free to take a look at it if you have time. Krakkos (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I've added it to my watch list, and I'll take a closer look. It's quite rare that I've encountered discussion of this topic among academic philosophers. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe

Bishzilla is sad now. Little user's questions make sense. But is very handsome monster! [Bishzilla always has a soft spot for those.] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

Apologies, Bishzilla! Of course, lesser beasts may fall, but your reign continueth! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British big cats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British folklore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Where do I go for this?

This new user does not seem to understand how categories work. He inserts Jersey Devil in Category:Devils, for example, Scylla in Category:Succubi, or creates a Category:Phoenix birds with one entry. Or this: [19]. All this seems dubious to me.

Since you are involved with folklore, maybe you know where to find users who know about mythology. I tried the portal, but that is old. And there does not seem to be a project. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hob! Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I'll check into this now. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Having taken a look at this, I agree with your assessment. The categories "phoenix birds" and "devils" are both pure OR, and I've reverted the other changes. Next step: Categories for deletion? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good.

I take it there is no mythology board similar to WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, but we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Folklore, which is active now and then. It might be a good place to draw attention to anything related that might come up. Often I find that the issues I'm enountering in these spaces derive from attempts at using fringe soruces or terminology, however, and so WP:FTN has been my go-to for most issues in these spaces. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore

Saw this and thought of you often having quite the opposite experience : ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Haha, yes—were it only so! :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Letting Bygones be Bygones

Hello BloodofFox, Just thought I'd tell you this so that we are on the same page. Although we have but heads more than once, I saw that you joined WikiProject Cryptozoology and your goals for the project. And I want to let you know that I appreciate the changes you made to the main page. I had an idea that I've never had the time to discuss this but With said articles I fond it interesting that none of the fringe theories have been discusses on eaxh said "cryptid". What I mean by this is that the pseudoscientists so called theories on whatever the topic is are noteworth enough to be included unless the source is unreliable forum based. My idea with this is have it in "theories" section where we have coverage of pseudoscience and science being written in a neutral objective way that counts within the boundaries of coverage on Wikipiedia. This would be fascinating to see from a readers perspective as it is an alternate theory that is never acknowledged because of the limits of Fringe. This can always change since I am currently swamped with stuff on and off Wikipiedia. But I wanted to mention it before I forgot. Happy editing!--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to work with you in the future, and we can certainly discuss secondary and tertiary sources on the topic as the circumstances arise. By the way, I appreciate the work you're doing on independent horror films on Wikipedia—I once had a beloved copy of Begotten and I am glad to see these topics receiving the coverage they deserve. Please keep up the good work! :bloodofox: (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will let you know when my workload starts to lighten, looking forward to working together.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Trolls

In Article they translate troll as Fiends

also goblins idea inspired by trows and trolls

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British big cats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British folklore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hypothetical civilizations has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hypothetical civilizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regnator omnium deus

Hi Bloodofox, I just stumbled across the the article Regnator omnium deus. It has no in-line citations and seems to be making a comparison between Tacitus and the Edda that appears completely unfounded without some explanation. There are sources listed below and it's possible that the connection is based on the often completely wild speculations of Otto Höfler, but without access to Simek's text I can't say. I was wondering if you might have a look, anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I might mention: essentially the same article is contained at Grove of fetters. A good comparison is the German article de:Semnonenhain (confirming the role of Hoefler, if it can be trusted).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ermenrich. Sorry for the delay in response. It's been quite a month. Simek does have some stuff on this that we could use to cite these articles, as I recall. I'll take a look at see what I can do here soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Loveland Frog reversion was explained

You claim that my reversion of Loveland Frog was "unexplained", but if you'd bothered to look at the talk page, you'd see that I have given an argument supporting inclusion of the image. Your deletion comes off as unsupported. --Qualiesin (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thor

Hello,

The infobox I have created has accurate information regarding the deity Thor. Sure, not many have heard of Jayanta. Jayanta is the son of Indra as Thor is the son of Odin. Odin and Indra is the kind of the Devas while Odin is the king of the Æsir.

Just because of this, please do not revert my edit. It has other useful info of who Thor's wife is and parentage, etc.

Thank you, Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please use the talk page on the article for discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to alert all current editors. I'm self-alerted for all DS at the top of my talkpage. Thanks for your help. Did you see my edits to Society of Classical Poets? It hardly warrants an article - the only notable thing is the hoax Inaugural address, but that's pretty interesting and was well covered. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention—very interesting. Do you recommend a merge or deletion? Doesn't seem particularly notable, except as perhaps a further extension of Falun Gong stuff like Shen Yun and The Epoch Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. I submitted (well, am about to submit) an arbitration enforcement request regarding your recent conduct on Falun Gong-related pages. It will be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Spent a lot of time on this, haven't you? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for pointing out the Wee Flea is a WP:RS fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 老坛陈醋 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ivan T. Sanderson

Can you please have a look at this article because I know you have tried to improve it before. Mass content has been added about a supposed "vile vortex" but the content looks very unreliable to me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This does indeed look quite dubious, particularly when looking at various books published by Adventures Unlimited Press used there as a reference (publisher site). I'll open up a thread at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Also take a look at Beast of Bevendean it might have to be taken to afd due to lack of reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Also this Old Yellow Top. There seems to many bad articles like this when it comes to this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What you're encountering here are unfortunately common problems among English Wikipedia articles on monsters from folklore (or, in some cases, fiction). Some time ago, in the absence of folklorist editors, a wave of cryptozoologist editors appears to have hijacked many of these articles and injected many poor-quality sources into them. While editors have since gone through and cleaned up quite a few of them (myself included), as you highlight, there's still quite a lot of work that needs to be done with these articles.

One thing I've found useful when editing these articles is to also post about any problem articles I might encounter in these corners on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. This ensures that editors who work in these corners and have the FTN on their watchlist will likely also add the problem articles to their own watchlists and participate in discussion.

I'll take a look at these entries here soon and see if I can help out. Thanks for bringing them to my attention! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah there are many stubs that are in a bad way, they are mostly legends but have been high-jacked by cryptozoologists over the years. I don't have loads of time to help out in this area because other topics interest me but I have spent some time today improving a few of the articles for the main players in the field of cryptozoology like Roy Mackal or Jeffrey Meldrum. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Asgard

Thank you for pointing out my invalid edits to the overview section of the Asgard article. I have edited the part of information regarding the Nine Worlds. However, I have dared to resubmit my edits about the fate of Asgard in Ragnarok, as well as mentioning that it consisted of smaller lands. I have provided references for this information and I hope you find them valid and relevant enough to leave this part of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yours.kkuznets (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Read the Talk:Odin page

I was responding to the lack of consensus. Put the box back until consensus is reached. That is the expected behavior. I came to the conversation as a disinterested editor. That was my judgement. Hash it out then edit. I will becsaying the same on that talk page less directly. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point

@Bloodofox: You presented an interesting point: "Irrelevant, Shen Yun and the rest of the new religious movement is based out of the US, where they face no such persecution and actively lobby the US government" So, why did not you delete the sentence in the second paragraph: "where the Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be an "anti-society cult""? If this sentence is allowed, it is also allowed to present more detail about Chinese government and Falun Gong in this page. Also, you said Shen Yun is based on US, so it is okay to add some comments from US government on Shen Yun, right? Please answer two questions separately, thanks! Sky-Dream (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please restrict this discussion to the article's talk page, thank you. 03:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

just a note

I didnt want to clutter the talk page but your assertion that "Scholars use the phrase new religious movement for what is coloquially referred to as a cult.” isn't accurate... They aren’t synonyms or anything close. Rastafarianism, Mormonism, and the Baháʼí Faith are all NRMs that are very far from what we mean when we say cult. This doesn't mean that some NRMs aren’t cults and vice versa, but most aren’t. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, while the term cult has a specific meaning that is more or less universal in anthropology, in colloquial use the term has a far more narrow semantic value. Nonetheless, what everyday English speakers often refer to as cults frequently falls within the category of what scholars refer to as new religious movements, although this category is far more broad and inclusive to what non-academics mean when they refer to something as a "cult". :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes most cults are NRMs, that doesn't work the other way though... Most NRMs aren’t cults. What you’re proposing is a logical fallacy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is coming from: Obviously, the term "cult" as a designation isn't used by academics in this context, and certainly not all new religious movements fall within the parameters of what everyday English speakers refer to as a "cult". For example, I regularly write about forms of neopaganism, which is a good example. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It comes from "Scholars use the phrase new religious movement for what is coloquially referred to as a cult.” which maybe I misinterpreted? I took it as you saying that NRM is the academic term for cult. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha, could have been more clear on that. Sorry about that! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Good, good, I figured it was a simple misunderstanding or ambiguity which is why I brought it here. Overall I’ve found your contributions to be exceptionally well researched. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad to clear that up and great to hear the positive feedback. Please let me know if I should clarify anything anywhere else—I appreciate your contributions and I'm glad to be editing with you here. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your decade’s worth of contributions regarding Germanic mythology. Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I'll be returning to editing on these topics soon. I am currently looking at the project's broader folklore studies infrastructure and intending to build from there. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Typo in your latest message on Talk:Falun Gong

I think you want to change "as you Blue Canoe doing above" to "as you see Blue Canoe doing above", or something like that. Notrium (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just tried to find where Blue Canoe has used wording like "left wing media organizations", and couldn't find it. Maybe you could be more specific in your message? Notrium (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll modify that. There have been a few instances of this among from editors in that camp, here's the quote from the first section:

That some Falun Gong-adjacent organizations have been criticized by left-leaning media organizations for their support of Trump or for disagreeing with the theory of evolution (or whatever) is not the most important thing about Falun Gong, and we misrepresent the body of literature on this topic when we pretend that it is.

Thanks—I'll modify my comment to be more clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, on Talk:Falun_Gong#"Extreme-right": "quite far to the left" for the NYT and others.

Anyways, I think it may be useful to suggest to you to express yourself differently with the aim of resolving disputes more efficiently. I am talking about the classification of editors into two "camps". While that may be true, in a way, and bad-faith off-wiki coordination is a well known occurrence (e.g., WP:EEML); please consider how it makes you, and your arguments look. I think it creates an unwanted combative tone, and that it may deter uninvolved editors from joining in to the conversation, or even being hostile to your arguments just because of how you frame things. It also may be construed as against some policies, like WP:AGF. I am not saying you should keep quiet, but there is surely a better way to say what you wanted to say. Notrium (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: also relevant: WP:FOC Notrium (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll let the article marinate for a while—I've done the best I can to bring more attention to improving the article. These aren't primary articles I edit on here, but after encountering media reports on these topics and seeing US cities blanketed in Shen Yun ads, I was surprised to find an absence of mention of the aforementioned media coverage (and related scholarship) on English Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't have a lot of time to spare for this sort of thing at the moment, and really prefer to edit on other topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orang Pendek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malay and Malaysian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Tim Dinsdale

You might want to have a look at this. The user who created the article recently reverted my edits and added Dinsdale own book as a source to the article many times. He seems to be wanting to argue that Dinsdale actually captured the loch ness monster on film. In reality the footage he took has been dismissed by experts as a boat. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but the article reads as pro-fringe. What do you think the best thing to do with this article is? Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, just added it to my watch list. I'll give it a closer look here soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violent_Threats_Against_Me

Just in case you had any helpful advice to share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder, should Wikipedia come with an advisory? WARNING: EDITING MAY RESULT IN ANONYMOUS CURSES. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps something to add at Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of an ongoing edit of page "Chuchuna" and "Alamas"

Hello, I have noticed that you are deleting the edits that I am being doing on the Wikipedia pages which needed thorough restructuring.

I was adding the relevant citations and was in the middle of it, all of a sudden all the changes were being removed.

That means you are discouraging to add any information to enrich this platform, without any valid reason? If you have something to add in a constructive way, I am open to it, but removing each and every edits without any reason is not acceptable.

You have deleted more than 6000 characters from a page and contributed zero character in it, deleting a content based on its classification/ categorisation doesn't contribute anyway in deleting the contents from the page. It is strange to note that how coining something as pseudo-science can be relevant to remove a piece of information. Are you accusing me that I am promoting pseudo science, or any statement gives any such promotional motif. Then the category crypto-zoology shouldn't exist in Wikipedia, then being an administrator of Wikipedia you are accusing Wikipedia to promote psuedo-science, which sounds ridiculous.

So, please don't abuse your status by removing the whole content without substantial justification, or providing relevant citation.

And I will definitely mail this anomaly to relevant Wikipedia authority. --AranyaPathak (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

See below. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Abrupt Deletion of all the entries from Alamas and Chuchuna Page

Please site some relevant cultural anthropology texts/ monographs before changing the category from crypto-zoology to folklore, it is not a scholarly practice.

For you consideration, practicing Scientism is equally reprehensible like pseudo-science, which is not a scientific practice, pseudo-science and Scientism are equally distant from science

A sober behavior is expected from a scientifically oriented person, cavalier attitude is not expected.

It definitely proves that you have direct reason to act one these kinds of pages.

Science practices value neutrality, and in the domain of knowledge a degree of disinterestedness is expected.

Hence, kindly do consider.

--AranyaPathak (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

See below. Additions of pseudoscience will be removed on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Fringe Source" explanation!

curprev 18:26, 21 July 2020‎ Bloodofox talk contribs‎ 1,003 bytes -1,675‎ - Heuvelmans is a fringe source, this is not an improvement, article needs to be rewritten from scratch with reliable sources undo/thank

PLease refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Heuvelmans

--AranyaPathak (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Heuvalmans is a fringe proponent, and founder of the pseudoscience/subculture cryptozoology. He is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. See WP:FRINGE. Fringe sources will be removed on sight. As a reminder, folklore studies is an academic discipline. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you are the only person in this world, who have some doubt that cryptozoology is a psuedoscience.

First time in my life I got to know that someone might think cryptozoology as a discipline of science.

without reference, source and citation no one can change the content based on personal preference, it is strictly against Wikipedia norms, and also outside any scholarly/ academic norms and conventions and there lies the problem. Rule 6. Cite Cite Cite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia)

Why you are deliberately excluding entries and vandalizing all cryptozoological pages, with personal agenda, and privileged position.

Its better you contribute in folklore. If you have any target to fulfill in folklore category, why don't you work on it, rather than vandalizing other cryptozoological entries, and populate the folklore category, dont try to smuggle entry from a different category, this practice is alien to any academic site.

And also please provide relevant citation on "Mongoloian folklore" related to Alamas

Please try to comprehend this is a formal problem, not a substantial one.

--AranyaPathak (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Now is the time to review WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be careful of 3RR on Almas (folklore), Bloodofox. I've given the new user a more detailed warning. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for stepping in, and you're right about 3RR: I'll be more careful. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Appealing my topic ban". Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

you may not make any reverts, subject to the usual exceptions, on Falun Gong

You have been sanctioned for edit warring on Falun Gong.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Allerseelen (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Allerseelen (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ravenswing 09:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Allerseelen (band) for deletion

AfD in the usual place Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! :bloodofox: (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ET

I didn't think my comment belonged on ANI so I'll just share it here considering what you shared there. A few months back I helped a friend install and setup software to block Youtube ads. The reason he needed it was that he noticed that her little girls were spammed with problematic ads. He didn't know what it was but he did mention that some ads were from the ET. I then informed him on what ET really was and expressed my surprise that such content is legal to broadcast to Canadians via Youtube. These were apparently standard sponsored ads that could appear in association to any video, not because the girls were on a particular channel. Anyway, that's the story... —Paleo Neonate – 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's remarkable that the ET is still allowed to advertise on Youtube, isn't it? When we look back at this era and take stock of the tremendous amount of freely flowing misinformation and ill-founded conspiracy theories now around every corner, I have no doubt that it will be clear that companies like Google and Facebook have contributed to—and capitalized on—the proliferation of this stuff perhaps more than any other entities in recorded history. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Only remotely related, but while I'm part of no organized religious group I do practice some meditation forms including the popular 108 forms Taichi. From time to time I subscribe again to a related non-religious school as an "advanced member" (who doesn't need to learn the sequence) just to enjoy the group practice. When attending non-formal practice sessions in public parks organized by the students, we're sometimes asked by passers if we're Falun, a testament to their popularity and how eastern-inspired practices can be perceived to be related. When I see a picture of people meditating with a persecuting officer, I see this dichotomy where it's improbable for meditation practice alone to be the cause, considering how many people do it and how Falun only borrowed some of those traditions as part of their own system. Then I read on the politics and conspiracy theories involved... And know from personal experience that there's no need for any of that to live an enriching personal experience, or even a mystical one. —Paleo Neonate – 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, my connection to these topics is by way of folklore studies: The development of qigong and its offshoots and relatives is of course interesting from a folklore studies perspective, as all folk practices are, but I have essentially been sucked into this particular topic against my will.

As much as I'd rather be improving Wikipedia's coverage of folklore topics more broadly—we've made some great headway over the past few years, but there is so much more to do—the project suffers when any aspect of the project is allowed to be turned into a propaganda organ for this or that group, and that's obviously what's been going on all Falun Gong-related articles for quite some time.

The ultimate result of a generally reliable, very available source on these topics makes putting up with the regular abuse I've received (including a fair amount of on-wiki and off-wiki threats from apparently various unrelated parties) worth the time I've put in, so far. I just wish some of this ground work had been put in a decade or two ago, rather than now. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

My on-WP interest is only because of the promotion and disruption as I don't really edit related articles otherwise (I'd gladly put any time elsewhere if the articles were in a more stable state)... BTW, in case it could serve and you didn't notice it, I recently created a watchlist, feel free to use or add items to it. It could also possibly be moved to the WikiProject space... It's also possible to use recent changes on a category of articles that were tagged with the WikiProject, but it's probably better to keep it separately as a hotlist for efficiency. —Paleo Neonate – 19:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

case request declined

The case request "‎Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution" that you were a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request.

The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

List of superstitions

In case you are still interested in deleting it: list was restored per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10 § List of superstitions. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk)

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Shen Yun, you may be blocked from editing. You're advised to revert source removals done against earlier WP:CON Berehinia (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Rowsell for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ffranc (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A fox for you!

	Fox
	For using blood of ox, rather than that of fox. Red Panda 25 19:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for reading my user name as blood-of-ox rather than blood-o'-fox! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Krampus

I don't get it? Why did you delete out of top of the article such an important data as the origin place / folklore / tradition of Krampus following St. Nicholas folklore had strong tradition and popularity lasting for several centuries such significant and long folklore tradition in countries as Austria, Slovenia, Bavaria (very very strong and long traditon); North Italy, Czech Republic and Hungary are right behind... There is million sources out there. The place of origin or common practice is a standard and basic information for every historical wiki article. How could an average and ignorant reader from Africa, Asia or America know where character (folklore) comes from? Alpine town folklore is such a general term, should be more specific. Meanwhile, no one in United States didn't even know what or who Krampus was until 6,7 years when Hollywood started making Krampus movies one after another. Would be great if you put those folklore countries information back in top of the article. Sportomanokin (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the names of these entities? Attendants of Nicholas occur in a variety of areas in Europe. These are shared motifs and not all occurences of these entities defaults back to Krampus: Krampus is just one example of a broader phenomenon. In other words, apples and bananas are both types of fruits. Traditions in those regions deserve stand-alone articles with reliable secondary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Fakelore

Are Fakelore stories and characters within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore? Should I tag them for the Project or not? Dimadick (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dimadick, I think that's a good idea! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Yuletide to you and yours, Ealdgyth! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Re:Cross necklace > Cross pendant

Hello User:Bloodofox, thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, contested page moves require a discussion to be opened on the talk page. The article is about cross necklaces and the sources make reference to this term, while none make reference to cross pendants. If you still think the article should be moved, you are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page, though I most certainly will be opposing the move per WP:COMMONNAME, among other reasons. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this, but this is a classic example of Wikipedia obstruction—if you have a geniune objection to pendant, go ahead and provide it, but making up policy on a whim and abusing the revert feature does not help the project. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:RM#CM if you're unfamiliar with how to request a page move. I, the creator of that article, do not agree with your WP:BOLD page move and per WP:BRD, you must gain consensus for your desired change (which I doubt will be successful). Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha, so we have our answer: You wrote this article, and you've intentionally avoided discussion of this topic. I'll return to it later with plenty of references to improve it, as it certainly needs it. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mjölnir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Slavonic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Strängnäs stone

I hope the article Strängnäs stone is interesting for you.--Berig (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just reading this—very interesting stuff. Thanks for putting the article together! :bloodofox: (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stith Thompson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Germanic heroic legend

Hi Bloodofox! I'm putting together at least a stub on Germanic heroic legend (currently a redirect to Alliterative verse) at my sandbox. Feel free to contribute if you have time! User:Ermenrich/sandbox--Ermenrich (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! We could also use a counterpart to List of Germanic deities focused on heroes found in the Germanic corpus. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Comparitive Mythology

Greetings and Salutations,

I noticed your edits on "Comparative Mythology", and wanted your opinion and/or insight on adding yet another section involving: "Afterlife/ life after death, other realms/ planes of existence, and/or eternal oblivion". Im a mere basic scholar at best (more of a hobbyist actually), when it comes to this field of study.

I'm willing to put forward some time and effort in regards to this, but possibly your help and/or assistance in making it more complete, etc would prove beneficial to the article as a whole. Regards ~ Gizziiusa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vanir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jan de Vries.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your 0 revert restriction on the page Falun Gong, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hey, genius, the Falun Gong talk page says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." And my name does not appear anywhere on this page. Nor did I have any idea of my name being apparently silently listed here. I'll accept your apology once you've reverted your mistake here and thank you to be more careful in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You were informed of your restriction here. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Aha, I see, by you last year, who it would seem arbitrarily made this decision, and with no expiration date! Where's the discussion that led to this decision? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Under the discretionary sanctions regime, administrators are authorized to impose sanctions within the Falun Gong topic area without the need for a discussion -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And without discussion and an expiration date? I had completely missed this bizarre notification and decision (seriously, 0 RR?), or I would have immediately appealed it and not had to deal with you on my talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The notification outlined the sanction and how to appeal it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the expiration on this obscure decision you made last year without any discussion whatsoever? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no expiration date -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

So a permanent restriction you've decided to apply without justification. Nice. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You may appeal your editing restriction at AE or AN at any time. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I can't, because you blocked this account, otherwise I'd be doing that right now. I'll be happy to pursue this as soon as this unjustifiable block either expires or is removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. So, I'm checking my watchlist as usual today, making edits here, reverting the usual tomofoolery there. I make what would be a typical edit (here), and next thing I know I am blocked from editing for 24 hours ([20]). After asking the admin—whose name I did not recognize—what on earth was going on, the admin informed me that last year the same admin had apparently decided myself and several others would be added to a 0 revert rule list without expiration (here's the list). The admin did not justify this decision, but it was apparently due to some kind of arbcom decision about a sanction (which I was not at all involved in). Again, this was done without any kind of discussion and Falun Gong has a 1 RR rule that I have long been aware of. Apparently the admin had left me a form note on my talk page about it last year, which I hadn't noticed (or I would have immediately appealed it and you wouldn't be reading this right now). This is arbitrary, unjustified, and pointless. Can I get an unblock? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From WP:REMOVED: "If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its content." You are welcome to make your own appeal at Arbcom once the block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

It should be noted that even if a user manages to be temporarily unblocked for the sole purpose of filing an arbcom appeal, it is literally impossible for arbcom to come to a decision before a 24 hour block expires. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Guy Macon, and the other directions in the block notice would also take more than 24 hours. @Guerillero: I intend to unblock Bloodofox to improve the encyclopedia per WP:IAR and because it hurts, physically hurts, me to see an editor of their caliber and with their history blocked. Entering the thicket of instructions in the block notice wouldn't work, so I won't do that, but I'll give it one hour and hope you're online and prepared to discuss. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC).

I'd back that. I'm surprised at the 0RR (and I edit that article) and think it should have at least had a clear and relatively short time limit. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Another cleanup project

[21] - not sure why legends and folklore are being categorized as cryptids, on a massive scale. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some way we can stop this with a tag or something? In the meantime, time to get to reverting yet again, I guess... :bloodofox: (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked

Unfortunately Guerillero hasn't been online since I posted above. Sorry, Guerillero, but if I wait any longer it'll become progressively less meaningful to unblock. Bloodofox, you have been unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC).

If you wish -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, if someone with 100 edits had the exact same block I would have advised unblocking on the merits.

On the other hand, it bothers me that once again an unblock reason is "because they have done a lot of good editing". If anything, veteran editors should be held to higher standards than newbies. See Wikipedia:Unblockables

So, good unblock for a bad reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking all day about unblocking. Well done, Bishonen!--Berig (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'll appeal the 0RR classification here soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Posted about it here. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you file an appeal please ping me as I could miss it, —Paleo Neonate – 11:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of section in Æsir–Vanir War

Hi, Bloodofox. I'd like to point out that two paragraphs which you seemed have written in the "Theories" section of Æsir–Vanir War have recently been removed. I don't have access to the book which was quoted, so I can't really revert the edit, but it seems like it needs to be reverted. The anonymous user left an edit summary. Eladabudi (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

List of figures in Germanic legend

Hi Bloodofox! I've finally published Germanic heroic legend and am turning my attention to the list of figures you suggested. I wonder if you might be able to help/have any suggestions for sources to find 1) the etymologies of some of the names and 2) the proposed historical (or non-historical) origins of some of the figures. I have Gillespie, but he only covers names appearing in Middle High German and not always the etymology or proposed origins. I'm putting the new list article together at User:Ermenrich/sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:, you should ask @Alcaios:. He has been working on this in a sandbox.--Berig (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I was considering something quite similar, but outlining all cognates in a comparable manner. Looks like there's a bunch more to add there—would be pretty handy. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for doing that. I'll look it over here soon. I've been considering putting together a list of entities reconstructed in Proto-Germanic somewhere, which would either constitute a list of its own or simply be something to add on to Germanic mythology. What do you think? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great idea, let me know how I can help. If there’s a lot I’d make it a stand alone list.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, maybe you know: is “narrative scheme” the correct translation of “Erzählschema”? I’m only familiar with the German terminology.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe you'll find narrative schema most commonly in comparable use in English but someone please do correct me if I am wrong. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive, possible BL-violating edits

In this edit you messed up a BLP article with serious POV pushing, most notably by labeling an individual a "conspiracy theorist" without obtaining any consensus in advance. For the matter, the discussion that followed at Talk:JP Sears#RFC on conspiracy theorist in lead re-affirmed with a clear majority that this term shouldn't be used in the lead (or at all). It is frightening to think how many articles such "Rewrite [more like "Ruining"] article" one could make. While you are entitled to your own opinions, conspiratorial or not, you cannot dictate who a person is on his biography article in such a way. Use the talk page next time, please. Bezrat (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

All of those sources are well-within WP:RS and are correctly attributed, which is a far cry from ridiculous edits made by yourself such as this one, complete with citations to obvious WP:RS fails like wikinetworth.com. It looks like you have a lot to learn about WP:RS. In the meantime, I'll thank you to take the half-baked apologetics elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The edit(s) I made was well accepted and the article has thankfully resorted to look more like it now. Cherry picking one bad source is easy, as is ruining a great comedian's reputation by finding a derogatory source and just sticking it. It is harder - and wiser - to approach a subject in a fair and unbiased way. Bezrat (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The diff consists of your attempt at inserting several sources that are obviously outside of WP:RS compliance, that's just one example. Fans of article subjects, like anyone else, are expected to review Wikipedia basics before editing. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Dear Bloodofox, I have started an RfC on the article Goths that may be of interest to you, see Talk:Goths#RfC.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Downes

Hi Bloodofox. Do you mind looking at the Jonathan Downes article? There have been problems with it from the very beginning. I just removed a bunch of promotional sources to blogs. Is he a notable cryptozoologist? He has published a look of books on it but I cannot find any reliable references reviewing his work. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also see Centre for Fortean Zoology, it has the same problem. The talk page reveals the article was written for promotional purposes. I have raised a discussion [22] Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I will take a closer look. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy:, I recommend also nominating Centre for Fortean Zoology for deletion. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bloodofox thanks for your help with this. I will submit the other article for deletion shortly. Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist) I will also submit for deletion it was created by Jonathon Downes and reads as promotion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Link to the afd [23] Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Old times, old wikipedians

I just dipped my toe back into Wikipedia to edit The Two Babylons and who should I see on the same article a few days later but you! It reminded me of old conversations on Talk:Easter. We might not recognize each other on the street, but I hope you're doing well. -Ben (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Long time no speak, Ben! Good to see you here. I hope you're also doing as well. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Beast of Dean

Three years ago you added a "rewrite" banner to Beast of Dean. It has had multiple edits since then - do you think the banner is still needed?— Rod ^talk 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

After giving it a quick look over, the page still needs a rewrite. Having pulled a fringe source, an unpublished 'draft' item, and an item that appears to have made no mention of the article's subject, the article still needs a lot of work. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thor

Do you want this take to arbitration? There is no consensus for the edits you're trying to force. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. I'd love to escalate it, actually. There's plenty of consensus on the talk page—there has been no infobox full of misinformation on this page until today and several years of clear consensus against it. However, it's clear that you need to lose mod tools, as you're keen to abuse them to get your way. They're not there for you to keep your preferred version of a page over clear consensus. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please consider this a full on apology. There was no excuse for my behaviour towards you yesterday. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No sweat, Catfish, we're good. I hope you're doing well. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair to middling, all things considered. Probably best that I embarrassed myself here rather than in real life... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Celebrity endorsements

You wrote:

As with any fringe-adjacent article on Wikipedia, ask yourself: Who is attempting to scrub this article? There's your answer.

The article is about a celebrity, and you are alleging that there are people out there who want to scrub to scrub the celebrity's connection to fringe theories from the article.

But!

Most people (I guess) who believe in a fringe theory would obviously be proud of a celebrity being associated with it, and would like that celebtrity endorsement to be written about on Wikipedia, not scrubbed. Only a minority of believers (I guess) would want their club of people in the know about a conspiracy to stay as exclusive as possible (so they themselves can feel more special) and would get jealous when more people know about the conspiracy, like when it would be featured on a celebrity's Wikipedia page.

So who you are talking about?

--Distelfinck (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am now going to have to ask: are you entirely new to fringe topics on Wikipedia? It's typical for article subjects, allies, fans, or adherents to attempt to scrub articles of material they want to remove to present a 'rosy' as possible image of the subject, often aligning with how the subject (or its representatives) prefers to be seen. We see it at cryptozoology, we see it at Falun Gong, at the Epoch Times, and just about every other fringe article on the site. This is often done by not only camped-out editors but also drive-by new editors and IPs. It's nothing new at all. Check the article's edit history: Who is trying to 'critical' material from the article? Again, there's your answer. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so for this particular article, I guess the people you are referring to who want to remove the conspiracist connection are not conspiracists themselves, but fans of the celebrity, who are ashamed of their idol being associated with conspiracy theories --Distelfinck (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes it turns out that it's the article's subject who is attempting to scrub the page, like over at Carl Raschke (see the talk page there, "Numerous Sock Puppets Identified and Blocked, Possibly Connected to Article Subject", off-site it turned out that it was in fact the article's subject—who went on to harrass some poor soul way out in the US who he thought was me). Sometimes users reveal who they are off-wiki, albeit rarely with honesty. When it comes to new religious movements (or similar, as the case may be with conspirituality-related topics), sometimes they're clearly adherents. While the would-be scrubbers sometimes unintentionally drop hints by emphasizing certain things, we often are not entirely sure of their relation other than they're simply dedicated to scrubbing a page so that the article's subject is presented in the 'best' light possible, much like a company's PR team. Unfortunately, this is a common phenomenon on the site whenever fringe topics are involved. It makes building quality articles in this area exceptionally tough. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks

I request that you delete this post, and if you do, then feel free to delete my reply. It is certainly a personal attack but even more clearly it is disrupting away from a topic of discussion where I think we probably agree on more than you realize (because you seem to be angry and not reading carefully). Anyway, if you keep making personal attacks I think I will act upon it, because this is going on and on, and not good for the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Several regular editors on these topics have expressed annoyance and frustration with your editing style and fixations. In turn, it has to be addressed. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly:

The personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentations are part of a planned revenge strategy.
You are attacking me and making false accusations on behalf of others who I frustrated on some other occasion, specifically (following your link) Berig.

How ridiculous is that? Please calm down. If you want to see where I frustrated Berig, here: [24] . The content concern Berig went to an admin to try to get me blocked for is explained in a slightly earlier post which did not involve me, thus proving that Berig knows I was following reliable sources [25]. Very very silly stuff. Not very "scholarly". Trollish. I'd suggest letting Berig fight their own battles.

In any case to be clear, I am warning you that you have violated NPA and been deliberately disruptive to the talk page. If you continue, you could get blocked or face other types of sanctions. People like Berig have shown me that I probably have to act more quickly on things like this in future. But honestly, it seems so silly? I see no logical reason to be trying to create artificial conflict like this. What are you aiming to achieve with that? It is depressing. I was HAPPY to have someone working on the question of balance. I am not scared of disagreements from reasonable people. I reacted by explaining, looking at the sourcing etc, why I think further edits are needed after your deletions. If I have to do it myself, OK. Just please stop all the aggression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice, threats, and good luck with that—this is hardly my first rodeo. Now, I have no clue who you are and I have only recently turned my gaze to our Germanic peoples article—and was shocked to see how bad it is, reading like some kind of low-rent essay from a Walter Goffart Festschrift—but I've composed many an article in this space over the past few decades.

Scanning the talk page history, it's pretty clear that you're the main blocker on the article for any sort progress in turning the article's state around. The primary issue appears to specifically be your aversion to Germanic studies—you know, the academic field focused on all things Germanic—and an odd fixation on the aforementioned Goffart, who you relentlessly invoke throughout the article's talk pages, on the article itself, and you've even bothered to make a little sub-page defending him. I mean, come on.

I highly suggest you either focus on Goffart's page—if you can neutrally edit on the guy—or focus on a fan blog or something. This is truly bizarre behavior on a straightforward topic that none of us should have to put up with. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes Goffart makes people like you angry and angry people make poor editors, and do disruptive things. I have no specific fascination with Goffart. (I do find the field as a whole quite interesting.) I also did not introduce him into the article. I learned a lot about the notability of these debates as part of my research to improve the article, which was apparently much more detailed than your own reading on the topic. This has also been discussed many times with good faith editors. Read the post of Ermenrich, which reflects the situation with Goffart accurately, and defines the reality we have to deal with according to WP policy. Goffart is a notable and respected writer on the topic of Germanic ethnicity, but no one is denying that his position is seen as too strongly worded by many. You never needed to attack me in order to justify a round of editing. I was fine with that. (Which does not mean I won't make counter-proposals.) It is great to keep hearing how great you are at everything, but clearly it is not helping this article much yet. I suggest it might help if you STOP writing fantasy stories about me, and be more constructive on the talk page. I am not going to accept the way you keep demanding that I have to see you as an authority. I have no interest at all in going to a rodeo with you, but to be clear, the warning remains in place. You clearly came to the talk page looking to attack me personally, as other editors have also recognized. That is bad.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't insert all of those Goffart references throughout the article? Because the article's edit history says otherwise—it's full of you injecting Goffart into every nook and cranny you seem to be able to. Of course, the reality is that Goffart is pretty much ignored throughout the field: This is evidenced by the fact that what Goffart calls "the g-word" continues to be used with great frequency by scholars, particularly by individuals operating within the field of Germanic studies and those affiliated with the world's variousGermanic studies departments and programs. These, despite Goffart's polemics, somehow continue to exist. Even if this were not the case and the field somehow did rotate around the guy, he still shouldn't be cited nearly as much as we see there. It's ridiculous and deep in WP:UNDUE territory. It doesn't take a formal background in this stuff to know better, fella. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please STOP distorting what I write? I do expect that you should be able to read accurately. 1. I said I did not introduce Goffart into the article and that is correct. He was in the older versions of the article also. 2. I have never denied, and versions of the article since I made major changes have never denied, that Goffart has not convinced the field. That is quite clear, so why do you keep arguing against something no one is arguing for? Isn't that intended to be disruptive, or is this a real mistake you keep making? He is being presented as a minority position for the most part. (One of the deletions you did was however of a non-controversial summary of events within a chronological narrative. That was pointy and will probably need fixing somehow.) OTOH, it is utter nonsense to say he is ignored. There has been quite a lot of soul searching. Please do some reading in the field of Germanic studies. I tried to give you some pointers in the talk page section called Goffart. Keep in mind many of his students have become well-known but take a similar position, and I think some Germanische Altertumskunde folks prefer to cite them, because they don't like the style of Goffart: Kulikowski, Gillett, Callandar-Murray, etc. There is also Patrick Amory who is often cited for some types of criticism. I apologize if the title of that section made you angry and made you say silly things. BTW I would like to know why you claim Walter Pohl is not a leading mainstream scholar on the topic of Germanic ethnicity, and who you think is a better example. Was that just a joke or misunderstanding or something? For better or worse Pohl is currently the main guiding source I used, not Goffart, who I mentioned as a critic of the mainstream position. Would you call Patrick Geary mainstream?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the works cited in the Goffart section, maybe this is interesting also, which is a retrospective collection:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Brather, Sebastian, Heizmann, Wilhelm and Patzold, Steffen. "‚Germanische Altertumskunde‘ im Rückblick. Einführung". Teil 1 Germanische Altertumskunde im Wandel, edited by Sebastian Brather, Wilhelm Heizmann and Steffen Patzold, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021, pp. 1-36. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9783110563061-001

See e.g. the intro page 34. Articles include:

Jörg Jarnut, "Germanisch. Plädoyer für die Abschaffung eines obsoleten Zentralbegriffes der Frühmittelalterforschung"

Yeah, we're done here. Take it elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop now please

Apart from being utter nonsense, (both counter-factual, and illogical), this talk page post is purely about me [26]. It could be used as a good example of what ad hominem and "aspersions" mean. I am sure you realize that such bullying is against WP policy. I am asking you to delete it. I don't intend to answer on that talk page, because it is clearly purely disruptive, and purely intended to be disruptive, so this can cause problems on that talk page where at least some editors are trying to work constructively. Why are you so obsessed with me? What annoys you are the published sources. I am just a Wikipedia editor acting in good faith, and according to policy. An editor asked if there were objections to a proposal in an aggressive way which was clearly an "or else" proposition. My answer was short. Your behaviour towards me is aggressive and personal and inappropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't insult me by acting like you're not aware of what you're doing: Read and internalize WP:BLUDGEON and then review this section again—from just a few days ago—where another editor asks you to dial it back and agrees that your constant plastering of the article's talk page has created an obstacle for any user who ventures to attempt to improve the disastrous state of the article. Then also review your talk page (User_talk:Andrew_Lancaster#Number_of_replies_at_Talk:Germanic_peoples). Now, you initially agreed to dial it back and take a break and so I thought, well, maybe this guy is reasonable after all. Without prompting, I in turn restricted my edits to let other users float some ideas. But then you promptly just went right back to it.

When editor behavior becomes an issue beyond the usual Wikipedia back-and-forth, it needs to be addressed. I see this behavior all the time on WP:FRINGE articles (that I am foolish enought to edit), including Falun Gong-associated topics and deeply WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE articles, like cryptozoology and Young Earth stuff. In these articles, adherents historically attempt to sabotage discussions with tremendous amounts of what about-isms and any other kind of wall of text they can muster with the clear goal of gumming up the works. It's a common tactic employed by editors—often clearly adherents—who aim to obstruct an article from evolving into something they don't want. By overwhelming everyone else with long replies at every corner, blanketing talk pages, and causing other editors who might want to get involved to decide it just isn't worth it, they maintain the status quo. And that's typically the obstructor's goal.

So, no, I am not deleting it. Some of us take what time we have here to attempt to improve articles and coverage here, not spend hour upon hour trying to keep others from doing so. We have no reason to do so. And if I can pinpoint a single a reason why the article is such a mess, it'd clearly be your intense lawyering and inability to get to the point. The article in question isn't even especially complex stuff—you just seem intent on making it that way.

Life is short. My time is limited here and I see no reason to sugar coat the obvious when I can tell you're applying WP:BLUDGEON to its fullest–and, since it has now been mentioned several times by editors other than myself, it's tough to believe that you don't know what you're doing. If you actually care about the state of these articles, then take a hint from the several editors who have mentioned it and take a break from editing the pages so those entries—and entries like it—can see improvements from other editors. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

There was no wall of text, and no obstruction. Your attack post was written in reply to a short post of 417 bytes, which was literally answering a post demanding that people should mention concerns "or else". So what you've written (and insisted upon) is verifiably a crude fabrication. You are not making positive contributions while you only write ad hominem and show no signs of being familiar with the sources. Maybe you've developed some habits working on those fringe articles? Please adjust your style. Life is indeed too short.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

So we're back to you making bizarre and ill-informed statements about topics like the entirety of the field of historic linguistics while fixating on Goffart wherever possible—just with shorter talk page responses. Got it. Well, I suppose that's some sort of progress. :bloodofox: (talk)

Germanic peoples

I don't know if you saw, but I rolled back most of the article to its state of 2 July 2019. I've been trying to kick start things by just editing, but I definitely can't do it alone. The help of yourself and other good editors on sprucing up the sometimes quite bad state of the article in 2019 would definitely be appreciated.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sól and Dwarf.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Category:Eschatology in norse mythology" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Category:Eschatology in norse mythology. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Category:Eschatology in norse mythology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MClay1 (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Name

Are you familiar with the meaning of the name Sangdeboeuf?--Berig (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep! Isn't that strange? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that this is an admirer.--Berig (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The more oxen in the herd, the better! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

LOL!--Berig (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Norse myth illustrations

I have been thinking for a while about our illustrations on Norse mythology. Back during the first years of WP, we had a lack of pictures and we added any pictures we could find, but nowadays we have more of pictures of archaeological finds and picture stones. Since scholarly sources prefer to use picture stones and archaeological finds as illustrations, I think that we should too. In the article Valhalla for instance, there are several pictures, but there is not a single illustration of what is usually identified as Valhalla on picture stones.--Berig (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. On the one hand, the items from the archeaological record are crucial for our articles and provide some level of real insight into the past. On the other, without an explicit identification by way of, say, a runic inscription with a theonym, it's often tough to say what these depictions represent exactly: E.g., a valkyrie, a norn, or Freyja?

Meanwhile, we can securely say pieces from modern artists depict this or that, but of course they reflect modern styles and contemporary ideas about deities, often very far removed from the historic record. Of course, our articles ideally cover every facet of a figure, deity, motif, or narrative's history, including modern reception.

It seems to me the solution here is to just be very careful with how we use items from the historic record and explicitly identify this or that as much as possible, while also trying to gather and present as many as possible. I think any depiction from the historic record we include in article should also have a dedicated section discussing the depiction in as much depth as possible.

For the Valhalla article, I think it'd be wise to start a section discussing the purported depictions, like over at Odin#Archaeological_record. While the situation is much better than it was a decade or two ago, I wish more museums had better digital catalogues! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-fringe sources for cryptozoology

I found this book and this one; I suspect the are fringe but I'm not sure. Could you help me to check whether they could be used as sources? Best regards and thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

These are both fringe sources: One is from a member of the subculture, Loren Coleman, while the second looks to be a self-published book by another cryptozoologist. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Are there reliable, skeptical, non-fringe books or websites which can be used as a source for en.wiki?--Carnby (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carnby:, yes, we use them throughout our very well sourced cryptozoology article, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Forseti

Our article on Forseti includes some odd information in the lead but not the body cited to Hans Kuhn (philologist) that the name is actually a loan of Greek Poseidon, including speculation about when Greek traders might have introduced the name. Do you happen to know if this is actually what Kuhn was arguing and whether this proposal is common enough to be cited in the article lead?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this. I'll take a look at what Lindow and Simek have to say about this when I am back home, and then follow up. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: — I checked both Lindow and Simek's entries. Both were pretty brief. Neither contained mention of the Poseidon derivation but it's certainly worth digging into more, IMO. I've adjusted the page a bit but I'd like to sit down with it in time to really hammer out some more discussion. I've always found this topic to be really interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this! The Poseidon etymology just seemed... odd. I wonder if Hans Kuhn actually proposed it.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't found where it stems from originally, but I am finding some hits for it in peer reviewed items on, say, Google Books, so there does appear to be some ongoing discussion about it. Of course, a Germanicized form like that would be super notable, and worthy of more attention, I'd think. I guess this is one of those instances of how truly obscure these corners can be! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Missing Information: Eir's "Dream Prophetess"?

Greetings,

Apologies if you're getting two-notifications. I found out about DM'ing and so I deleted the original post but then I found out that talking about this publicly would be preferable as others can chime in on it so I will go with this instead. I will be referring to myself as Duploom and I have come to discuss a certain matter with you. I selected you because, based off of the edit history of the Wiki article on Eir, you seem to have a history of familiarity with the article. It's this familiarity that makes you desirable to me as I suspect information that was once available on that article is now missing and I wish to discern whether or not it was even ever there at all.

At around early 2018, when I was into the New Age, I was seeking healing and somebody recommended that I turn to Norse Gods. Naturally, with a bit of research, I turned to the one called "Eir" for assistance. Now, when I read the Wiki article on Eir, I definitely remember it being written that there was a woman who would be visited by Eir herself in her dreams. There was a footnote at the bottom of the article which you could click in order to see the woman's own website and there, you can read more about her in-dream visitations by Eir. I remember reading a bit of this. Now, some time passed, I tried to check the Version History of that Wiki article in order to try and find mention of that dream prophetess but, it's gone. I used the Internet Archive as well and I still cannot find it. You see, I am currently mentally ill, so much so that at one point, I hallucinated seeing an entire Cathedral that turned out to not exist at all and so I would like to see if anyone remembers any mention of an "Eir Dream-Prophetess."

Do you remember any such edits to the Eir article?

Regards, Duploom

Duploom (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you can check an article's edit history by clicking the "view history" link on an article's top right corner. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have time to look at a folklore article?

Hold Nickar has been cut down to be about the nixie (and reference to the Hold Nickar on some TV show), but was originally created with theories of deriving from Hjaldr Hnickar, hence being originally a name of Óðinn, and being a precursor of both Santa Claus and the term "Old Nick": version by the creator, VocalIndia, who is putting up a spirited defense at ANI in a section they started, where their edits to the article are being used as both good and bad examples of their work. They themself removed most of that material while the article was at AfD, and Kleuske removed more in what is currently the latest edit, but I note the short description still says "god". I would simply redirect to the nixie article—where it's not even a See also—but the AfD was a bit of a mess. It was soft closed as delete on grounds of minimal participation after receiving only one !vote, for deletion on the grounds of being just a name for the nixie. But it was restored 8 days later after a request (page log) and the AfD was subsequently closed as keep after belated listing at the Mythology Wikiproject and a number of !votes asserting RS. So I wonder if you could give me your view on the sources, as someone with more expertise than me. I have pinged the author since they themself cut out almost all the non-nixie material in response to the first AfD !vote (as well as Kleuske who followed up on that by removing it from the intro); I can't see any mention in that AfD of the option of redirecting, and perhaps VocalIndia would be amenable to that. If not, I think a second AfD might be procedurally required, with Wikiproject Folklore notified this time. But with folklore subjects there's always a possibility that valid sources are being discounted on an IDONTLIKEIT basis, so I'd like to get an expert opinion. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: If there's more to this figure than meets the eye, I'd very much like to hear it. I opened a discussion on the talk-page and I welcome anyone participating. I do object, however, to the suggestion that I removed the "Santa connection" based on IDONTLIKEIT. Kleuske (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I very much did not mean to imply that played any part in your action, which was entirely appropriate in any case, since the material had already been removed from the body of the article. I am sorry; I hadn't even realized it could be taken that way, my concern is with the independent notability of the topic. Thanks for starting a talk page section. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia provides us with a simple solution to this matter: We require WP:RS discussing and contextualizing the material, and since this is folklore, it should really be from someone with a relevant background, ideally a folklorist, philologist, or some other overlapping specialist. I'll take a look at the article and assess what we're working with, and then we can go from there. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Baba Yaga

Hi, I notice you've removed a great deal of the copy editing I've been doing today on Baba Yaga, but you may not have noticed that many errors have now been restored by you. What I've been doing is not vandalism, but correct formatting of sources, adding links, and generally preparing the article for a GAN. I've enough experience with Wikipedia editing to know what I'm doing. I will be looking at Johns (and other sources to ensure the article is properly written. In the mean time, please understand if I restore some of the corrections and additions I have been making, whilst at the same time ensuring that your positive contributions are not lost. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. The material I am restoring is not new, and attribution of claims, such as those of Vladimir Propp, is important. Propp's morphology is not universally accepted by folklorists, for example, and stating that Baba Yaga is "a donor" is not helpful to readers (and even without mentioning Propp's morphology). I've authored many WP:GA articles on folklore topics for Wikipedia, and I need to emphasize here that this article is about a figure from the folklore record and not simply the literary record: In turn, before this article is anywhere near WP:GA-worthy status, the attestations section needs to be greatly expanded and, to keep that from balooning into a series of back-and-forth regarding this scholar or that scholar, it's wise to break out commentary from scholars into a "reception" section. See for example valkyrie. The current article is a stopgap solution. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I'll hold back from the article (apart from any formatting issues) with a view to working on it in the future, and do some more reading up beforehand. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TE_by_Bloodofox Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TE2_by_bloodofox Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Breidablik discussion

Hi Bloodofox, there is a discussion ongoing on Talk:Breidablik which you may have seen already. If you have time to help out, I think your opinion on conventions would be very valuable, whatever you reckon. Thanks! Ingwina (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Ingwina (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Intro to Norse myth for students

Hi Bloodofox. I was wondering if you had a recommendation for an intro to Norse Myth for college students. Back in the day I read Hilda Ellis Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, but that was written quite a long time ago. Is there something more recent that would be just as good (and easily available)?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Berig, you might have some ideas too - does Price's Children of Ash and Elm give an adequate introduction to the mythology, for instance? I own a copy that I got as a gift, but I haven't gotten around to reading it.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I quite enjoyed Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe and it still holds up surprisingly well (except for the last chapter about conversion, which I remember being very much a product of its time). Price's Children of Ash and Elm is more problematic, although up to date. He's very bad about providing sources for some his claims there and some claims he makes are real head-scratchers. For a recent introduction to Norse mythology, I recommend John Lindow's recent (2020? My copy says 2021...) Old Norse Mythology (Oxford University Press). If you're looking to assign reading from the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda alongside it, I'd definitely go with the respective translations of Faulkes and Larrington (latest edition, 2nd?). By the way, Faulkes makes his Prose Edda edition available online for free. Hope that helps! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I have read the book (it is excellent), and I think it is a must read for anyone who wants to better understand the mindset of Norse paganism. Reading it will not give you an introduction to the mythology, but it will give you a good basis for understanding the mythology.--Berig (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Kalends of January

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, @Ealdgyth:! It seems we've both been around here for ages now, hasn't it? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Lindwurm article

I've just become aware that for some reason we have a separate article lindworm to dragon. In my opinion lindworm (and its Norse equivalents) are just native Germanic words for dragon, but what do you think? Looking at the article, do you think a merger is in order? It's been there since 2003.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article could use a cleanup and expansion. While definitely related to the concept of a 'dragon', these often appear to be regionally distinct notions. We could for example make some kind of top-level article about Germanic wyrms (including examples like the ever glorious Tatzelwurm) that would reduce some of the overlap in these—I'm sure a lot has been written about the topic, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and an article charting their earliest mention up until the present day followed by scholastic commentary would be useful.

A little historic Wikipedia insight: Folklore topics like dragons, ghosts, etc, can turn out to be surprisingly complex. Unfortunately, as you've surely noticed, English Wikipedia's (especially modern era) folklore articles tend to be pretty bad and surface level. But they were once much worse. Myself and a few other patient editors have spent (way too much) time keeping every folklore critter article on the site from becoming cryptozoology Pokédexes.

English Wikipedia has never had a community of folklorist contributors. This is why the pseudoscience was allowed to thrive, and why you can find residual stuff from the earlier era like sections uncritically listing "sightings" and "reports" rather than scholastic analysis and commentary from folklorists. We even encountered admins who rejected an etic approach and instead sided with the pseudoscience proponents, implying that the topic wasn't 'serious' and ignoring WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, etc. It has definitely been an uphill battle.

Anyway, despite all that, we're better poised than ever to help make English Wikipedia into a really excellent folklore studies resource. Maybe it's time to wrangle these wyrm articles as a starting point. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Vindelev hoard (or maybe Vindelev treasure)

I see this is still a red link. Nice Commons category. Contains one exemplar of the houaʀ bracteate inscription, much discussed by Karl Hauck and others, and is in the news again because Lisbeth Imer [de] et al. have interpreted another bracteate inscription as the earliest attestation of Óðinn: AP, press release from the TV2 ref cited at da:Vindelev-skatten. (de:Schatzfund von Vindelev doesn't seem to have the story yet.) Might you or a talk-page watcher be inclined to fill the gap? (BTW Hauck is at de:Karl Hauck (Mediävist) but sv:Karl Hauck (stub), so no ILL above.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

We've definitely got some work to do with these! The recent bracteate find is probably the nudge we need. There's no doubt more finds on the way soon, as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hope so :-) I see in my links and notes document that I assembled sources for an article on the hoard when it was first announced. Looking for Imer and Vasshus' scholarly publication on this reading, or at least an announcement of where it's forthcoming, I did find this, which has the actual transliteration, iz Wōd[a]nas weraz (also here at Vejle Museums. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Same here! I hear there are also more finds to be announced soon. I'll dive in to our bracteate coverage some more when I can make some more time. I encourage you to do so (and anyone else reading) in the meantime! We could really use at the very least an article on this new braceate find as soon as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No new articles from me for the forseeable future, I'm afraid. I think the article on the hoard is the most urgent need, including both those bracteate readings, followed by an article on Hauck, but I'd assess Thor's hammer ring and amulet ring as between those 2 in importance. (But I've failed to find any images on Commons, just modern examples that are really suspension loops, so one would presumably have to try to get some off the Swedish museums.) But take everything I just said with a massive pinch of salt; I don't write articles here any more and besides, it appears to be generally agreed that my field of study doesn't exist. So: I really hope you or a talk page stalker can manage some of this. If so, I may be able to help, subject of course to editorial judgement of the worth of any contributions I make. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Anglo-Saxon months

Template:Anglo-Saxon months has been nominated for merging with Template:Anglo-Saxon time. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Hi Bloodofox - I noticed two templates having more or less the same function and saw you made one and might be interested in giving your thoughts on the merger I've proposed. Ingwina (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tree That Owns Itself

Tree That Owns Itself has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dyrehaven (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dyrehaven (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Falun Gong, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

AE Request Notification

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Request for Sanctions against Bloodofox for Disruptive Editing, Activism and PA. Thank you.) HollerithPunchCard (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

AE warning

Hi, Bloodofox. I have closed the AE request regarding you, with remedies including the following logged warning:

All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views.

While AGF is not a suicide pact and there may be times when it is appropriate to point out that other editors are editing in a biased manner, it really should never be necessary to speculate as to their motives or personal views. Even where an editor is in fact pushing a religious POV, such comments can have a chilling effect on people with the same views who edit constructively. So focus on content, or if necessary on conduct, but not on contributor.

I wish you a happy <relevant winter holiday here>. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy New Year! :bloodofox: (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Of Folklore and More

Hello BloodofFox, I know we have had our differences and spats. I just want you to know no hard feelings. I have been working on a wide variety of articles lately with some pertaining to folklore. Specifically I have been working on the article on the Fearsome critter the Hidebehind, via a separate userspace. If you are interested in helping with that I can give you the link. Also I was looking over the Baba Yaga article and have come across some information that might help you when you get around to expanding it. Some of the articles on Baba Yaga are more complete on other foreign language Wikipiedias such as the French and Russian articles. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello PalefaceJack, thanks for the notification. I'm pretty busy but I can make some time to check in and take some time to help. I hope you're having a good January! :bloodofox: (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

AE

Hi bloodofox. FYI, you're mentioned quite a few times at WP:AE#Appeal by HollerithPunchCard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

^ Moe, Bedard (2014-11-13). "The One Eye of Odin and Jupiter". Gnostic Warrior. Retrieved 2019-05-31.
^ "Eye of Horus", Wikipedia, 2019-05-04, retrieved 2019-05-31

[1] Moe, Bedard (2014-11-13). "The One Eye of Odin and Jupiter". Gnostic Warrior. Retrieved 2019-05-31.

[2] "Eye of Horus", Wikipedia, 2019-05-04, retrieved 2019-05-31

[1]

[2]