User talk:Bloodofox/2005-2006

Should List of Gothcore bands be speedied after Gothcore was AfD? Found it by searching WP --Paul foord 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds right to me. The entire article was entirely biased around a single band and bands that they (he) wanted to compare themselves to. Thanks for the help! :bloodofox: 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bloodofox Here Christophe, actual webmaster of both sites www.deathinjune.net and www.deathinjune.org - I wonder by the way if we haven't already been in contact in the past, but anyway... Please could you contact me on my email [email protected] or either [email protected]. I have a few elements to contribute to your excellent page about DIJ, and as I don't feel confortable at all with Wiki's system it'd be better to discuss it by email. I had started translating your page in French on the french wikipedia, but you've done a lot of updates since then, so....... I'll also ask Douglas if he's ok about adding a link to this wikipedia page on DIJ's official website. Thanks & take care. Christophe

Greetings Christophe! I've sent you a response via e-mail as requested. :bloodofox: 05:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! don't know if you ever received my email answer, sent monthes ago, but seems like you never received it - too bad. Anyway, I lost your email contact, which is why I'm contacting you here again. I'm setting up a Wiki section on www.deathinjune.org, which takes a lot of time - as I am moving all datas from both sites, and also from Discogs.com and the Wikipedia, to the DIJ Wiki pages... Perhaps you'd like to take an eye to it, or even contribute/help? For the moment the pages are not available to the public, so if you wanna join, just register on www.deathinjune.org, log in and send me a private message and I'll give you moderator rights... Take care! Christophe. 10 August 2006

Hello again Christophe, I've sent you another letter. :bloodofox: 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see some work going on at Hávamál. Maybe we could collaborate somewhere? I'm currently working on Freyr among other things. - Haukur 18:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. From what I can see, you're doing an excellent job and I can definitely learn from your formatting. I'd like to help where and when I can. This sort of thing is why I'm using Wikipedia in the first place! The Havamal page needs major work, a list of translations would be especially beneficial. I just did a little clean up job for the moment to make it more presentable. The page itself needs major work for being such a major and important source for the subject, I hope to be able to help flesh it out as much as possible. :bloodofox: 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read your comments at

Certainly, I would be glad to assist. :bloodofox: 05:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have anything to fill out the entry, or can watchlist it to keep an eye on it, I would be most appreciative! --

Sure, it's on my watchlist and I'm sure I'll have something to contribute in time. :bloodofox: 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have researched this. I have discussed this more times than I care to remember. There is no evidence that the Swastika played any role in Germanic paganism. The

Discussion continues on Dab's talk page. :bloodofox: 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, we both edited at the same time: link you want to come behind me and fix what you want changed? Sorry...-

No trouble, I just broke up the lengthy introduction a bit with an overview section. I'll go back and do it again. :bloodofox: 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] I'm sorry, but how do you come up with this stuff? I can accept that you have a strong "Internet Heathen" viewpoint, and I'm fine with your adding of all sorts of Neopagan stuff found on the internet, but sometimes your statements are really pulled out of thin air. In this case, there is no case at all that these forms even remotely qualify as "Proto-Germanic", so why bother?

Ouch. Allow me to clarify. You may be notice I've been going through and formatting a lot of articles lately. A lot of the Germanic Paganism articles are a mess and almost unreadable. I was attempting to condense a bunch of the info there and make an overview section for the Odin article before making some redirect pages, which it could probably use. My mistake.

Unfortunately, I got started on something else and I forgot about it mid-way through and didn't go back to it. The article doesn't mention the "Othinn" spelling, which is variant for the name that is sometimes used, correctly or not.

I've been adding a bunch of stuff to the Germanic Paganism category too. I'm not sure exactly what's supposed to go in there and have just been collecting things that seem to be appropriate for it with mixed results, which I've been intending to ask about.

When have I pulled something out of thin air? What's this about 'all sorts of neopagan stuff'? I back my additions up with references whenever possible and I'm personally far more interested in fact than someone's interpretation or personal spin on it, especially here. Internet Heathen? Is that some sort of jab? Am I stepping on your toes or something? What's with the tone? :bloodofox: 09:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't deny you're doing some good work. But a lot of your additions are only barely defensible. By "thin air", I mean "google". Your idea of "backing up with references" seems to be "do a google search". This is fine, as a first step, but you seem quite reluctant to part with anything you found on the internet, even in the face of academic references. If you're interested in facts, we should get along fine. But you never came forward with the reference that that shoulder pad was designed as an Odal rune. Your reply to my criticism on Swastika was "do a google search" -- you removed the fact that OR argues for the "fylfot" as an ancient symbol, replacing it with "Neopagans as found on the internet". You seem fond of spiriting away solid references to fascist symbolism as "often found on the internet, also in unpolitical contexts". A lot of your edits are like this, you google something, and phrase whatever you came up with as "commonly found" or "often held". If you're interested in facts, consult the literature, and come up front with what you have consulted. It is possible to discuss Neopaganism in encyclopedic style. Just, it is necessary to document exactly who holds what, on what basis. Just treating Neopaganism as a fuzzy cloud to be probed by google searches won't do at all. I'm just tired of having to double check most of your edits, I am glad for your contributions, but you should really double check your own stuff rather than rely on other editors cleaning up after you.

dab (ᛏ)

09:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you're annoyed by a few of the contributions I've attempted to defend in particular. Regarding the Odinic Rite edit, I'm not sure what the problem is there. I simply stated that it wasn't limited to the Odinic Rite from my experiences with the suject before I even came around here, on the internet or not, which is true. I'm well aware that google searches are flimsy, you always have to check your sources. But when you're referring to neopagans as an active, growing group of people and their use of symbolism, it's clear that just about anything ancestral is fair game and, given the stigma of the Third Reich and the use by Neo-Nazi groups, many of these symbol-related articles -need- a small mention of use by neopagan groups, which they largely didn't have before I came around. Why? Otherwise these pages are doing little else but furthering them as hate symbols, which isn't doing anyone a service without some sort of political agenda. Both off the internet and on it, these symbols are being used and it deserves a mention to reflect that. I understand a lot of my edits have been sort of vague regarding this subject, though when it comes to reference for particular items or places, I'm not interested in vagueness either - I want to know exactly how it relates, why and where. Anyway, if I make a mistake, I'll definitely admit to it but I'm not trying to spread misinformation here. :bloodofox: 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize this, and cheers to you for your efforts. If we can pin down who exactly uses a given symbol, I have no problem at all with mentioning that. See also

dab (ᛏ)

14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the Sun Cross page and I should probably clarify that I didn't put those names there. I, too, feel that the page could use some serious work and is very lacking at the moment. :bloodofox: 08:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Iceland&curid=64578&diff=36609151&oldid=35348231

I agree with your choice in changing that wikilink, but disagree about the semantic change for the other part. Our few sources on the subject of the religious values for the original settlers are rather clear on the subject. So, my question for you is: what is it that drove you to make the semantic change from 'mostly' to 'largely', since the latter term implies a lesser total quantity compared to the first term? Are you thinking of the papar, for example? What sources cause you to want to make the change? Slainté,

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the change was simply aesthetic. It sounds more professional to me. Although, in retrospect, you're right and I should have used perhaps something clearer like "dominantly". I've went back and changed it. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. :} :bloodofox: 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read

Understood. Which article did I screw up? :bloodofox: 08:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You've been moving lead sections under a header called "Overview" which is non-standard. (Not screwed up, just non-standard.) - Haukur 08:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be more careful about that in the future. :bloodofox: 08:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree your image looks better; however, commons:Category:Runic_letters has a whole Elder futhark set, and I figured the images on the rune articles should be consistent, font wise; maybe you could upload your font to commons? I don't care too much about this either way, so you can also just revert me. Note that

I have this idea that MM's page should include some information about his goals as the co-editor of Tyr, but am not sure whether this would be best put there or on a different related page. Radical Traditionalism doesn't seem to have an article (should it?), so in the meantime I think discussion of their goals should go in an article about one of the movement's most prominent mouthpieces. You're pretty vocal on Talk:Neofolk, so I thought I'd ask your opinion before sullying the site with my drivel. -Cantara 21:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Ahh yes.. I'm immortalized forever as bickering on the neofolk article talk page! Personally, I'd say that a summary of his involvement and basic goals would definitely be appropriate on his and the TYR page. A more expansive amount of info might me more appropriate for the TYR page itself but in this case, it's really up to you about how much info you want to put. I'd put at least a summary on both though. Whatever you put up, I'll have a look at it and give you a hand. :} :bloodofox: 23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just created an article at Radical Traditionalism. Have a look and let me know what you think! --Cantara 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for creating this much-needed article. I switched a few things up that I thought could use a change. Let me know if you are planning on doing anything else and would like a hand with it. I always enjoy collaborating with someone, it helps keep me on track. :bloodofox: 23:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

If the permission from the copyright holder does not permit distribution to third parties, perhaps consider removing the image. Or perhaps a fair use claim could be made to use the image in a specific article.

regards, Dethomas 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I believe I've solved the problem. :bloodofox: 19:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you redirected Ehwaz to Eihwaz [2], even though the article had "not to be confused with Eihwaz". You're worse than

I think I was also argumentative with you in the past, and I'm here to say that your contributions to Death in June and Boyd Rice are most welcome, and have greatly improved those articles. Judging by your ability to smooth over conflicts, you might want to consider going for Adminship... --NightMonkey 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses, guys. I take the recommendation as an admin as a great compliment. However, since I move around so much and my knowledge of Wikipedia isn't where I would like it to be before I went after something like that, I will get back to you if the vote ever happens. In the mean time, I definitely appreciate the compliment. :} :bloodofox: 01:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Agalloch_01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your assistance with the article on Annabel Lee. I find that I enjoy Wikipedia most when I can document something that is almost entirely undocumented on the internet before an article on Wikipedia exists - This is a good example. Do you know any of the specific films that Lee has been in or if any of the photos of her taken by the various photographers mentioned were published by the photographers in any of their photo books? If so, we could make a filmography and make a more accurate listing of her modeling work - both of these things seem unavailable elsewhere. Also, I've read somewhere that she was involved with a 1993 film entitled Red Spirit Lake[1] - Can you verify this? :bloodofox: 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Annabel Lee wrote and filmed Red Spirit Lake (1993) and We Await (1995) in collaboration with Charles Pinion (she removed her name from the movie credits). With Tessa Hughes-Freeland she made the super-8 movie "Dirty" based on a George Battaile story, this movie is documented in Jack Sargeant's book "The Cinema of Transgression." She made numerous performances and videos and exhibitions in New York, San Francisco and Mexico City before turning her back on visual arts completely in 1995 upon recieving a MFA from the San Francisco Art Institute in order to focus on music. She appears on the front cover and in Richard Kern's New York GIrls and stars in his movies "The Bitches" and "Nazi." She appears in Charles Gatewood's book Badland's. She appears in Nick Zedd's movie "War is Menstrual Envy" as well as in musc videos of The Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black" and an appearance with the other musicians of Amber Asylum in a Journey video. She has also been photographed by Annie Sprinkle. Some photos by Kern and Dick Darling and others are at http://www.houseofdomination.org/members/annabelle/anna.html the website is defunct and the nane is spelled wrong. 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Fenyafrey

You removed the "sort" todo I added yesterday to

Well, it seemed to me like the article was pretty well sorted so I assume it was out of date. I could have been wrong. If you feel it needs further sorting, feel free to add it back. :bloodofox: 20:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Samhain! I have also been doing a similar process on Imbolc, but need to be bolder. I haven't yet looked at the other festival articles, but imagine they'll need the same sort of treatment as these two. Thanks for making me feel less alone in my quest to clean these things up. --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to help! I admire your contributions and look forward to helping you out further, Kathryn. I've edited some holiday pages with similar problems, such as the Yule article, in a similar manner. In fact, a good majority of my edits on Wikipedia relate to Germanic pagan topics. However, I've realized for some time now that the Celt-related articles have far more problems due to various groups propagating misinformation about them and few people around to actually lend proper information and research to the articles as opposed to the Germanic pagan articles where they're pretty well policed. Your edits have been refreshing and I hope to see more of you! :bloodofox: 07:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some more work on Imbolc, and just did an overhaul on Lughnasadh. Beltane will also need work, but it wasn't in quite as dire a place as poor Lughnasadh. --Kathryn NicDhàna 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks a whole lot better. I've taken a lead into the Beltane article and given it the same basic treatment I gave the other articles at first, tackling the neopaganism divisions with a quick copy and paste slap to the FACE. The rest of the article needs further oganization, which I will get around to if you do not beat me there first as you clearly know more about this subject than I do. :bloodofox: 09:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out the recent changes on

Yes, I can understand why you wouldn't want this there and I feel the same. Is there somewhere a debate is going on about this? I would be interested in adding my opinion. :bloodofox: 11:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No debate that I know of, but I yanked a few of them because there was no consensus to place them and because they could cause confusion to readers. There may be more - I only yanked the ones I saw on my watch list. - WeniWidiWiki 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there isn't any debate--it was just a mistake of mine. And I agree with all of you guys. Don't worry, there were only those three that you removed plus one on Mabon. As for the template on the Wheel article itself, I suppose it could be removed and the template deleted as it now only appears on one page, and those links are all already listed on the page anyway. It definately won't "become an issue". Hopefully no lasting harm done? --gwc 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries, any work is better than no work done and contributions are always welcome. Thank you for your understanding and please continue! :bloodofox: 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would assume any possible template debate might happen at the

Sabbat and the article is now a horrible mess. I'm not sure how much to try and balance it, as it's really a Wiccan thing, or just leave it alone. I am hesitant to wade in, but leaving it as is is distasteful as I really dislike having links on all the fests to something that's such a mess, even if it's only a minor text link. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫

19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the

Sabbat article, you may be better off leaving it be until someone dedicated enough to go through the thing and compeletely restructure it is willing to do so, then go behind them and take a look at it so that it doesn't fall into the pits that so many articles regarding Wicca do here. This is the approach I'll be taking on the subject as well. There's a few Wiccan editors that will probably come through and give it a work over. :bloodofox:

14:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I looked the article over and totally reformatted it. Although my interest on the subject is rather limited, it should at least be more presentable now? :bloodofox: 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking that a "Germanic Festivals" nav template like the one I made for the Gaelic festivals might be useful. If you would like my help in creating something like that I'd be happy to lend my skills, though you guys should supply content (is it the four festivals? and are the names of the festivals on the articles as they are now named/spelled properly?). I'm not sure what you mean by a Germanic and Celtic polytheism calendar; do you mean articles about these things, or categories? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one would have to be very specific when it comes to Germanic festivals as there were quite a lot of them and Germania is a large area. Plus, there's also newer Germanic festivals that are usually, but not always, related to their ancestors. I think that creating a Celtic one would be far more easy but when I have some time I will attempt to produce a cohesive Germanic festival calender unless somsone beats me to it. :bloodofox: 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The edits seem to be in good faith, albeit clearly substandard. I suggest you place a polite welcome message with links to policies and MoS on the user's talkpage, together with the invitation to sign up. Remember it took you a while to grow familiar with WP's rules too. If you contact the user and he should persist in editing without comment, there will still be time to issue sterner warnings. So far, the editing frequency is low enough so be easily revertable when appropriate. regards,

I will do this when I have some more time if I notice he makes the same changes again. Thank you for looking this over. :bloodofox: 05:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the article in poor condition, and made important editions to Arminius' later campaigns against the Romans. The other editions are fact and supported by my sources, they are not biased. I used no internet sources, they are all scholarly works. Justinus Magnus 11/8/2006

Hello Justinus, thank you for making a username and I would like to apologize for not initially assuming good faith towards your edits, as you seem to be actively contributing and learning the medium. Apparently too much time in vandal watch mode can make me a bit bitey. I've since gone back and wikitized your additions, edited some of the material and generally restructured the page to fit your additions. Thank you for contributing and feel free to ask if you have any questions. :bloodofox: 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise seems to work, thanks for your assistance sir. Justinus Magnus 11/16/2006

Good morning,

A good morning to you and a good evening to me, Septegram. :} Sure, tweak it as you desire, I was not altogether happy with my own edit but felt it was at least an improvement. :bloodofox: 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good evening, then (*bowing*). I'll go muck around with it when I have a minute. Time-sensitive stuff here at work...

Septegram 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, just wanted to let you know that I would really appreciate a response on the talk:sabbat page, when you get a chance. As I mentioned in my response to you there a few days ago, I think we have the same overall goal in mind; we're just trying to go about it differently. I think this is an important dialogue, and I would like to continue it, particularly as I still disagree with your change to the Wheel of the Year entry on the disambig page. I'm sure we can come to some agreement, or at least start to understand each other better. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 23:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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.