Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Archive One, Archive Two

Just to note, such indepth insights and explorations into folklore is best for the under-developed English folklore article. Also much of what you went into deep depth about seems to be explaining British concerns (some of which is even anacronisms). A succinct, neatly ordered summary is all that is needed on the main article. It is currently undergoing a GA review process and it doesn't really help to have such a messy, unordered exploration on what only needs two simple paragraphs. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

And I'll revert it again, because its an unordered mess which meanders into extremely indepth insights and explorations, when its supposed to be simple, short summary of the topic. Why not try improving the almost bare English folklore article first? That is a better place for such indepth anylsis, but I have to say the information seems to have more to do with Britain as a whole than just England. Half of the stuff your claiming it says, it doesn't. It doesn't say "Morris dancing is Celtic". Could you ateast wait until the GA has passed? - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't need to revert it someone else has. I didn't say the article says that just the website (which is not a reliable source). Everything I wrote is backed up by a source. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I should wait until the GA is passed if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and impartiality. I think it will pass with the section after my edits. I shall work on the main English Folklore page as you suggested as well. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The layout of it and the length is the biggest part which is making it a mess (for instance we don't need a full and complete list of every Welsh manuscript Geoffrey of Monmouth has influenced by). Compare it to any other section in the article. It won't pass with GA set out like like that IMO. If there are errors, certainly the correct info should be incorporated into the short summary. In regards to impartiality, I don't have a particular bias one way or another. If you could explain the specific points which you feel gives the wrong idea, I'll try to put it into a neater and tighter prose. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

One thing I'm getting at in regards to layout is folkloric writing and folkish activity (for instance Long Sword dance) should be in their own specific paragraph rather than all mixed together cronologically. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you were the one who originally set things right in the English heroic legends category and the English mythology category, I think you would like to make a comment in the discussion page for the English heroic legends category as yoru revision were reverted by Cúchullain. I have checked Cúchullain's contribs history along with his discussion page, and it appears to me that he is one of the most biased wikipedians I have come across and highly unworthy of his Admin status (I have even counted numerous violations of wikipedia policies made after he gained Admin status) and is a blight to wikipedia. I am not sure if you are an Admin or not, but your input would be most valued. - Ed 81.129.52.17 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not an Admin. I am not sure that I wish to be, at least at the moment as I have far too much work in keeping Wikipedia from being the playground of the not so subtly biased. I have had talks with Cúchullain before as you probably know, and yes he does have a habit of letting his biases rule his edits. I myself can admit that I have biases however I try to show the other viewpoint where valid and only remove a viewpoint if it does not square with facts of the matter using logic and reasoning.

I shall look at it as soon as I can. Thanks. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The anon is mistaken. I didn't re-add those cats, though I did add the English folklore cat for the reasons outlined on the talk page. I have no interest in getting into any kind of wikidrama with you or with anyone.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, no sweat. It looks like our anonymous friend was just a bit overzealous and didn't assume good faith. Cheers and happy editing, I know we'll cross paths again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Wicca, as "minor" if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits. Per Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The rule of thumb is that only vandalism/test reversions or edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modifying content should be flagged as "minor". It appears that almost all of your edits since 9 August 2009 are being marked as minor. This suggests you may have an automatic setting which is causing this, if so, please consider changing that, as a number of your "minor" edits, while not necessarily contentious, are also not minor. Vidkun (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are correct there does seem to be an automated setting... not sure why though as I didn't set it... Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you haven't already figured it out, it's in your "my preferences" "editing" tab, advanced options, eighth checkbox down (I believe). Thanks!--Vidkun (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry! I worked out where to look and unchecked it. Not sure how it happened though. Thank you for notification anyway, I hadn't noticed it until you sent the message telling me. Thanks again. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi SDS-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Richard E. Grant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dutch and Hungarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Queen Mab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Keightley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)[1]. For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.Kmt885 (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Notice to significant contributors to the articles that a Merge Proposal from Alp (folklore) --> Mare (folklore) is underway.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

First of all, your source says that "This Boy" was "styled like a Fifties doo-wop ballad"; that doesn't qualify it as a doo-wop song, per se.

Second, there is a format for inserting a ref into an article; read this.

Third, it's not necessary to refer to someone as a "troll", as you did in your edit summary; that is considered a personal attack and will not help you.

Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 23:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Twelve Olympians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• left:1em;"|[[Dis pater]] (sometimes [[Orcus]] or<br> the Latinisation of the Greek ''Plouton'' [[Pluto (mythology)|Pluto]) || [[File:Hades-et-Cerberus-III.jpg|75px]] || style="padding:0.5em;"|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interpretatio graeca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Frisian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on This Boy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
you are invited to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

were did you find the userbox that says that you oppose EU out off socialist reasons? i would like that userbox very much! R.Newstream

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oh What a Circus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romany (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) 09:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Skelmanthorpe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Norse and David Mills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

RfC open there and social media addiction. Its quite basic linguistics but now the article is being suggested for deletion based on the linguistics. Any thoughts appreciated! --E.3 (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:British legendary characters, 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. Rathfelder (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sigurd, that's fantastic nickname. I see you are using my userbox, I love Jordan as well, and I am flattered of this honour. Would you like to edit it? You can do whatever you want, it's make basically by that of Brandon Sanderson. We can edit it together if you want.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello colleague,

I am interested in the Middle Ages too.

I created Category:Medieval civilizations which is part of Category:Civilizations by time. The former is nominated for deletion and at the moment the vote is 2:0 in favor of deletion. I am used to deletions, but this time I am stunned. I do not believe there is no place for such a category. I believe that most people with interest in history would agree that civilizations existed in the Middle Ages. I ask people to contribute their opinion to the discussion. Regards,--Maxaxa (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply