Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:52, 19 April 2012

Template:Archive box collapsible

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

Ragnarök

Hi

Just wondering why you changed ǫ and ø into ö in the article on Ragnarǫk. These letters were separate letters in Old Norse and when they later merged to ö it happened in Icelandic only. Mainland Scandinavian is still using different characters for these sounds (ø is kept (as ö in Swedish), ǫ became o).

I understand that some very old computers are unable to show the ǫ character, but I do not think the ö is a very good solution. My web browser treats it as a variant of ø, so when I search for vǫlva or volva, I won’t get any matches. However, both völva and vølva will give me plenty of matches. This causes issues for me, who actually have a computer that follows the standards, just to be nice those who have a computer that does not. Earlier, I didn’t have OGG playback support on my computer, but that was my problem – I wasn’t replacing every OGG I found on Misplaced Pages with AVI's or MPEG's. In addition to this, people may read the letter ö as an ø-sound instead of the ɔ-sound, which is completely wrong. If ǫ can’t be used, why not use ò (or CSS/HTML4 underlined o) instead then? This is a character that is unused in both Old Norse and Icelandic. Searching for ǫ will match ò in Safari and the pronunciation is closer to the original ǫ.

According to the article on Web typography, some older browsers like IE4 are able to download missing fonts. So why not use this technology and avoid all these replacement characters? Or even better, why not use a template like Template:SpecialChars?

There are plenty of other solutions, so again: why choose the one that results in both incorrect spelling and ambiguation (ǫ/ø > ö)? 85.166.241.212 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking the time to get in contact with me here. My use of the o-umlaut and not the o-ogonek is due to Misplaced Pages naming conventions. Please see Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(Norse_mythology) for the naming conventions we're employing on Old Norse-related articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see … But still, røkkr and rǫk had different vowels. If ö is used in both cases, then most readers are unable to know what the original vowels were. 85.166.241.212 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is primarily just the o-ogonek. Ø is, of course, fully supported, so there's no problem with its employment where appropriate.. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, then things are not as bad as I thought. I assume I can re-introduce the difference between ö (insted of ǫ) and ø in Ragnarǫk’s article then? It was lost when ǫ became ö. 85.166.241.212 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Easter

Bloodofox, your posts here and at the talk page have the effect of being disruptive, especially this close to Easter day itself. I don't think it's right to characterise the article as having undue POV issues, certainly not to the point of slapping a tag on it. Worst of all (from my point of view) it brings a combative, tendentious editing style and makes pagans/neopagans look, frankly, a bit daft. Please leave the article alone until after Easter, and then return and edit/discuss more carefully and calmly. I'll regard further edits from you over the next 36 hours in the same vein as disruption. Sorry to be so blunt. Kim Dent-Brown 11:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I at least appreciated the more ironical comments - too bad that humour even of the more acerbic style is not universal  Velella    14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

THank you, Velella. Kim, your threats have been ignored—I've brought numerous points to the table, including that the article totally ignores the major secular aspects of the holiday. The tag must remain until it's sorted out. The only embarrassment here is how the article negates anything but Christianity. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please self-revert the POV tag or you will be blocked for disruptived editing. Kim Dent-Brown 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, are you seriously threatening to block me for restoring an NPOV tag when an NPOV dispute is clearly waging and where several editors have stated agreement with me? I assure you that I will pursue it to the fullest extent. You are making a major mistake here. I suggest that you apologize and drop the subject. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Kim, you have now blocked me because you don't want the "NPOV" tag on the Easter article on Easter Sunday. This is regardless of there being a major series of neutrality discussions on the talk page, with your stated purpose being that you don't want the tag to be there on Easter Sunday. This is the most ridiculous admin action I've ever seen. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked you until Easter is over. My view is that you have manufactured an NPOV dispute and done so at a particularly inappropriate time. One person making arguments with very WP:UNDUE weight does not make a POV dispute. If it did, then a rabid Christian editor could come to the Beltane article, make a spurious argument about how May 1st is really some saint's day or other, then slap a POV tag on the article when he got sent away with a flea in his ear. I don't think it's unreasonable for the article on the major Christian festival to major on Christian themes. The pagan etymology for the word is already well-attested in the article and does not need further promoting. Why you chose right now to start this discussion I don't know, but I assume the date is no coincidence. Slapping an unwarranted POV tag on the article the day before Easter day strikes me as quite unnecessary, and this is the disruption for which I have blocked you. The two of us have collaborated on a number of articles with pagan themes before now and I hope we do again; this adventure of yours can only give pagan editors here at WP a bad name and makes it less likely that our articles will be taken seriously by other editors. Kim Dent-Brown 16:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Greetings, uninvolved administrators. For the first time during my several years of editing Misplaced Pages, I have found myself blocked. Specifically until Easter Sunday is over. Why? The reason given was "disruption". What does this translate to in my case? Re-adding the {{npov}} tag to the Easter article when a discussion about neutrality (mainly about the article essentially ignoring the secular) is currently being waged by several users on the Easter talk page, including myself. See, for example, the "Well, why not debate what Easter is Easter?" thread.

It's all very simple, really. User Kim Dent-Brown responded to a post by user howcheng complaining about the NPOV tag being on the article as an "huge embarrassment", as it would be there on Easter Sunday. Kim agreed that we couldn't have that (it being Easter Sunday tomorrow and all), and so the tag must be removed (despite the big NPOV dispute going on at the talk page). He is now insinuating that I have "manufactured" this argument (??), despite the talk pages making it highly clear that it was going on well before I came along, with various charges of bias being made by users all over it. Indeed, the article almost entirely ignores the secular. Kim also talks a lot about the "pagan" aspects of the discussion, a minor issue in the face of the secular issue, but one that comes up a lot due to apparent confusion on the part of some editors about the historic chronology of the use of the name Easter (and its Old English ancestor, Ēostre).

After the ban was made, Kim decided to notify me that there was a discussion going on about me at the Administrator's Noticeboard. As a result, I was unable to participate. Very convenient! In his edit summary when notifying me, Kim also ceded that the block was "potentially controversial". Hum.

Anyway, I request that this ban be lifted. I feel that the ban is completely inappropriate; this article has very real issues with neutrality that the NPOV tag exists to reflect. It is there to note that neutrality has been called into question, and, indeed, several users on the talk page have discussed that the article totally negates the secular and downplays or ignores the non-Christian and that this needs to be fixed. The article should not be given any special treatment, regardless of if Easter Sunday is tomorrow—these issues need to be addressed. I am essentially being blocked—by an involved administrator—to keep the Easter page free of neutrality discussion and without an {{NPOV}} tag until after Easter is over!

Accept reason:

I've unblocked for procedural reasons -- the lack of notification about the ANI discussion was improper. I suggest you limit yourself to talk page discussion about Easter for the next day or so, since you can now participate in the relevant ANI discussion. --jpgordon 17:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kim Dent-Brown 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So that is where this block extends from. How convenient that nobody notified me until now! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, FoxCE made the report to AN/I here but neglected to inform you. I had not realised this until I went myself to AN/I to ask for a block review and informed you myself. This is an important procedural error and I will ask FoxCE not to repeat it (and to apologise to you for the omission). I'm sorry if this lack of communication has added to the problem here. Kim Dent-Brown 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you realize that this looks like a nice and quick block hit job, don't you? If I had been notified, this certainly would not have played out like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloodofox, you seem to have been edit warring since April 5 to keep your version of the etymology in the article. Since you are a very experienced editor, you must know that this would raise eyebrows. I'm sorry you weren't informed of the ANI. As I stated in the ANI, I would support an unblock if you would agree not to edit Easter until its main-page appearance is over. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ed, as is quite apparent on the talk page, I have been discussing numerous aspects of the article page, and not simply "edit warring" over exactly what to include in the introduction. The issues are multiple, the primary of which is the total lack of information about the strong secular elements of the holiday on the article. I've already been unblocked, and I strongly suggest that your get your facts straight before posting on my talk page next time. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why your five reverts since April 5 should not be viewed as edit warring, independent of any issue with your POV tag being improper? If your views were wildly popular, it is hard to understand why three different people would have been undoing your changes at Easter. Also, you've been participating in proper discussion at Talk:Easter for quite some time, and if your views had won a consensus there it surely would be evident by now. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Five reverts"? Now that sounds quite nasty, doesn't it? Can you tally up all the other reverts done by numerous other editors since then? Would you care to tally up the amount of comments by users stating they agree with my points on the talk page? Do you have some way of quantifying exactly how archaic and obscure things like historical linguistics and Germanic philology are to the general public, and why it is so difficult to explain these matters to them? And, do tell, EdJohnston, what my "views" are that should win consensus! Are they that they article does not reflect the major, secular elements of the holiday? If so, it seems pretty evident that they have, indeed, won over consensus. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's unfair that other people have not been agreeing with your views? Isn't that the very definition of consensus? It's your job to to convince the other editors, untutored though they may be in Germanic philology. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that a lot of time is spent informing people unfamiliar with the basic background needed to approach the subject. Secondly, what are these "views" of "mine"? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that if you repeat any of your edits to the article, I will have no hesitation in blocking you as you are now fully aware of everything. You should continue to discuss easter bunnies etc on the article talkpage, but you clearly do not have consensus for your edits at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that I am formally requesting you not to leave drive-by threats on my talk pages about blocks that should not have been made in the first place. If you want to get into the discussion at the Easter talk page, you are welcome to, but grand-standing and badge-flashing won't earn you any points, whoever you are. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks jpgordon for the procedural unblock - I would have done so myself having been thinking about the lack of AN/I notification, but was AFK. Had I realised the lack of AN/I notification I wouldn't have blocked in the first place. Now we're back at the status quo ante, I will also ask that you (Bloodofox) not restore the POV tag on the article, or make edits to the article that have not achieved consensus on the talk page. To do so will be disruptive in my opinion, and worthy of a block - this time procedurally correct. Kim Dent-Brown 18:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I think you owe me an apology for the sheer amount of time wasted here. Secondly, I strongly disagree with your nonsensical threat of ban over adding an NPOV tag to the article as the article has a long history of discussion of bias and lack of neutrality in the article even prior to my recent threads (and subsequent mass agreement that the article is not neutral—making the tag entirely appropriate). However, given the amount of time you've already wasted of mine over this nonsense, I'm not going to put myself in a place where you can slap me with another attempt at a 48 hour ban and require me to write up another block request. What a ridiculous situation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I happily repeat my apology about lack of AN/I notification. Had I realised you had not been notified, I would not have blocked you at that stage. I have asked FoxCE to be more careful in notifying users about AN/I threads in future. Kim Dent-Brown 18:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I also wish to apologize for my lack of notification relating to the AN/I—it was my first time contributing to that page and I was not aware of the notification prodecure. I did not participate in any explicit discussion for your block (so I did not support it), but I do wholeheartedly support the unblock as inappropriate given the situation. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a drive by - you obviously haven't noticed me camped on your doorstep. And I'm not threatening to ban you, just warning you that edit warring against consensus is blockable. As your stated aim is to improve the encyclopaedia, I'm sure you won't disrupt it again to make a WP:POINT, and I can limit myself to admiring the view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no "point" being made in my edits, just as there is no "point" being made to the rest of my numerous edits and article rewrites. Further, you seem confused; there is no "consensus" here being acted against by myself. Kim has simply decided to block anyone who adds {{npov}} to the article, regardless of there being a long-time, widespread agreement on the talk page that the article is, in fact, not neutral, mainly due to ignoring all things secular. His reasons for doing this are so that the page can be on the main page tomorrow, Easter Sunday, apparently. I don't think this is acceptable admin or user behavior, as it's essentially hiding the fact that there's a neutrality dispute as a means to make the article look better than it is. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can count you know. Number of reverts, number of editors disagreeing with you. All to insert a point about what...the amount of chocolate sold (that's the secular aspect of Easter, isn't it...? Boosting sales of non-recyclable packaging containing small quantities of inferior chocolate). Oh sorry, was this not your point. You seemed to have been talking about alleged pagan links, not sales of confectionery. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that you can count, but it doesn't seem as if you have. Do a headcount of the percentage of users on the talk page who have stated that the article does not include secular aspects of the holiday and needs to and then get back to me. I think you'll find it pretty high. Regarding your future pie chart, I should point out that the secular element involves more than chocolate sales—you also need to include basket sales, fake grass, dye, plastic eggs, etc. The secular element is my main point. The pagan element is considerably thornier. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If there has been longstanding agreement on the talk page about the POV nature of the article, this has only been reflected in the last 24 hours with a tag. That seems a strange lapse; why the tag now, of all days? I think it's reasonable to assert that adding the tag now was an attempt to game the system. Of course I can't see into your heart and know that was the case; it's just my judgement. If you think I'm behaving unacceptably you are welcome to make your case here. As your block was overturned you remain an editor in good standing and are welcome to do so. Kim Dent-Brown 23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen you repeatedly accusing me of "setting up" the dispute. That's ridiculous, and I will thank you to throw that notion to the wind. It's Easter. People checkout the Easter article, including me. That's where the edits came from, and there's no need to conjure up a conspiracy theory about it. Anyone can see that the talk page is filled with thread after thread of users talking about bias and issues with the article. I suggest that you reinstitute the tag and rescind your block threat. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see a number of editors pushing fringe viewpoints - that's not the same thing at all as bias. Easter is the major Christian festival, with a small side order in sales of chocolate, and the very curious fact (quite adequately represented in the article) that the name of the festival in English isn't christian at all. Quite the opposite to Christmas, where the name is christian but the festival has all but forgotten its religious roots in large parts of the English speaking world, in favour of a secular festival promoting shopping. You keep referring to 'secular' - outside of easter egg sales, what do you mean by 'secular'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Control or command + F the word "secular" on the talk page and you will find that the majority of the users on the page explicitly comment that the article needs to better reflect the secular aspects of the holiday. Many non-Christians also celebrate the holiday in regions where it is celebrated, and they do so with Easter eggs, Easter bunnies, and all sorts of pastels. This is explicitly extra-biblical and non-religious. Indeed, on the talk page I produce a number of solid, academic references talking about exactly these elements of Easter. See a smattering of said references that I explicitly outline here. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading it. You seem to be majoring on trying to prove that Easter is a pagan festival. Dude, you're on a hiding to nothing with that argument. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hiding to nothing"? Did you mean to type that? If so, I don't understand. Further, I have not and certainly do not consider "Easter a pagan festival". I'm not sure where you're getting that impression. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a common UK English expression, means 'putting effort into something that isn't achievable' or similar. I'm reading what you've written - if it's not what you meant then that is a problem. If you're not advancing an argument that Easter is a pagan festival, why is 90% of your contribution on the talkpage about how Easter "has a significant history that far predates its Christianization" (your words) and "there's a lot of scholarly work out there discussing levels of potential synthesis between today's Christian Easter and yesterday's heathen Eostre-monath/Eostre-celeberations out there. Indeed, the fact that the name is used points to synthesis on par with Yule and Christmas." (a few more of your words) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I didn't pick on this particular idiom, I think it's fairly apparent that English is my mother language. On the Easter article, a lot of my time there regarding "pagan" is spent correcting people on the subject. See also the Ēostre article, of which I am the primary author. Further, Easter is no more "pagan" than Christmas is; syncretism does not make something "pagan". Indeed, both Yule prior to Yule-Christmas and Eostre-monath prior to Christian-Eostre/Easter had a long history before Christianization/synthesis with their respective imported Christian holidays. There's nothing remotely controversial about that. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion based on these statements? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking in terms of translation from brain to script, but you are using 'secular' to mean 'non-christian'(a meaning it lost in the Reformation) not 'non-religious', and you are deliberately treating "pagan" as "not including heathen", a usage only found among modern followers of Germanic/Scandinavian spirituality (where it is mostly used to distinguish them from Wiccans). It's no wonder you're getting into fights with people. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Elen, I mean secular as in non-religious. The historical pagan issues and the secular bunnies, baskets, and egg hunts are different issues. There two main things I'm dealing with on the talk page; the secular aspects and the historical heathen aspects. See the references I provide in the thread I link you to above. Two of them are about American secular (non-religious) Easter customs, whereas another is about modern Germanic neopagan veneration of Ēostre. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I can read you know. You're either not saying what you think you're saying, or you've changed tack on what you want to say since this whole thing started. And neopagans don't hold festivals for Eostre on Easter Sunday. The date of Easter is fixed using a Christian calendar which uses the same system as the Jewish one for calculating Pesach (which is a lunar festival), except that early on the Christians fixed the date of the vernal equinox as 21 March, to stop Easter moving around too much, and they also early on learned how to use an almanac and stopped requiring a priest to actually see the moon in the sky. A system the Muslims still use to determine the start and finish of Ramadan. The grandmothers of the Germanic pagans used to hold spring festivals on the vernal equinox, unconnected to Easter entirely. It would be interesting if you have sources establishing when the Americans started with the eggs and bunnies thing. If it's anything like Hallowe'en, you might be able to prove that modern Easter was invented by Hershey. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I've been responding to comments on the talk page about Ēostre, and "this whole thing started" who knows how long ago on the talk page. Neutrality remains a serious issue. You can clearly read and count, but you seem to be being very selective. Further, you might find that if you read the Ēostre article, you'd see Grimm discussing "eggs and bunnies" in the early 19th century, and it was hardly new then. As for the date of Germanic Heathen celebration of Ēostre, it's going to depend on when they do it. Again, had you read Ēostre, you'd note that the date of the feasts (festa) attested by Bede are unknown, but that they occurred, of course, during Ēostre-month. I've known heathens to respond to modern Easter with an Easter (i.e. from OE Ēostre) of their own, as the modern date of Easter falls well within the range of said festivals. It doesn't help that academic coverage of Germanic neopaganism is sparse, but I'm sure there are sources out there quite explicitly stating this. It's just a matter of digging for them. However, my attention must again soon turn elsewhere, and I've taken what is left of my Misplaced Pages time to further add to the Ēostre article. All of this block farce nonsense was unwelcome, uncalled for, unappreciated, and took up a lot of time that could have been better spent working on articles, but that's the downside of Misplaced Pages. And I'm still waiting for that tally from you about other users commenting on the lack of neutrality in the article in agreement with me. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

See, we're still being separated by a common language here - in this case humour. However, lets not fall out over it. Neutrality is a serious issue, and at least it's been discussed now, rather than just tagging (which was the problematic thing, as I cannot see that you had consensus for it). I will decamp and leave your talkpage in peace, wishing you ¡Felices Pascuas, Frohe Ostern, God påske, Wesołych Świąt, or whatever you choose to call it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"As I cannot see that you had consensus for it"? Like I said, do a count. You'll find just about every user commenting that the article is does not reflect the secular aspects of the holiday. Consensus is pretty solid. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The TAG. I do not believe you had consensus to put the tag on the article at that time. Come on, even I have observed that it needs information about Easter as a secular holiday. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Elen, when was the last time we needed consensus to tag an articles for issues obviously needed on the talk page? If you agree, then you're welcome to tag it. Someone should. Surely you realize how ridiculous it is to threaten to block users for tagging and article for NPOV issues when essentially every editor on the talk page has explicitly mentioned that the article is not neutral. There should be some repercussions for that sore of admin grandstanding. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh do stop WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you have to edit war to keep something on a page, you haven't got consensus for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, so in other words you see no problem with this threat. I guess that's why you came around here in the first place... :bloodofox: (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent) Bloodofox, I've pointed out above the procedure for calling poor admin actions to account. If you think you have a case, you're welcome to use it. I suspect you don't think you have a case, which is why you haven't. But best of all, why not divert some of the energy here and on the Easter talk page into actually improving the article? Suggest some wording, draft a compromise, try and meet other editors' objections. It's the same deal as at Germanic neopaganism; no matter how right you think you are, you have to work with the other editors at the page and that is the place where you'll get your point across, in collaboration with others who at first sight take an opposing view. Kim Dent-Brown 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you've already wasted enough of my time, and I'm hardly going to be patronized by your invitation to your ridiculous recall invitation. Regarding the Germanic neopaganism article, there's no analogy between this situation and the guiding I've provided there, so I have no idea why you even mention it. As you well know, I've written and rewritten numerous GA articles for this project that require heavy collaboration, and I have absolutely no reason to be further insulted by you. In other words, I suggest you take your digital sheriff's badge off of my talk page until you have a real reason to be here and maybe concentrate on doing something useful somewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the congrats:-) This was all ... sudden. I'm going to try hard to live up to people's trust in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be difficult for you, Yngvadottir. You always do your research and have certainly displayed that you can contribute to and build articles, something one won't find most users—especially administrators—with experience with. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hay, Bloodofox! Happy Easter and greetings from Croatia. Do you remember me, it's me, Michelle. I also want to ask you - is there any source in Norse mythology for a mother of god Höðr? Is that maybe Frigg? And can you please tell me should we delete this infobox - Template:Infobox Norse deity?

I hope you enjoyed the Easter weekend! Be well.--Your Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.214.106 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Mychele! It has been some time. In response to your questions:

1. Outside of the heavy euhemerization of Gesta Danorum (where Höðr is Latinized as Hotherus), attestations of Höðr's parentage seem to be limited to one mention in Skáldskaparmál ("son of Odin"). Unfortunately, his mother is nowhere mentioned in the Old Norse corpus. This is particularly unfortunate given the immense difference between Saxo and Eddaic material involving Höðr and Baldr. It might have helped to illuminate the situation a bit better.
2. I am generally against the addition of info boxes to mythology articles. I feel that they offer nothing that a well-written introduction cannot, and often seek to simplify what should not be. Therefore I think that the info box template should be deleted, yes.

I hope that you had a nice Easter as well! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bloodofox! :)

From what I have understand, Ymir had three children - one son whose name I cannot write, one nameless son and one nameless daughter. I redirected pages for them on Ymir's article, but do you agree with that?

Hello Mychele! It is unclear if Þrúðgelmir is one of the two sons of Ymir (the many-headed one or otherwise), although he would logically be a descendent of some sort. As for the redirects, I don't see why not. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Vetting

Bloodofox: your editing at Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism) has become disruptive. Multiple times you have been asked to provide supporting evidence for your deletion of cited content. Multiple times you have responded with variations on "this section needs to be vetted" rather than discuss the content itself (see Talk:Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)). By "insisting" on "vetting" the article, you are attempting to impose a process totally alien to Misplaced Pages, and disrupting the natural editorial sequence and improvement of the article. Can I respectfully suggest you state your actual concerns with the cited text you are deleting. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Spare me, Davemon. After what you tried to pull there, you should be apologizing on the talk page rather than "taking it here" and attempting to paint the situation as if anyone but you is repeatedly "ask to provide supporting evidence". I've repeated the issue to you multiple times. Once again, after your evident lack of understanding of Gimbutas's place in modern scholarship and subsequent attempt at painting a mainstream scholar as a fringe nut job, just modifying the text is not enough; the references attributed need to be checked out to say exactly what you claim they say by an outside party. Next time get a better understanding of the material you're adding before you add it and this process won't be necessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)