User talk:Goldfritha

Welcome!

Hello, Goldfritha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DVD+ R/W 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfritha, you made an excellent addition to the Theme (literature) article. That's a great point. Question: Do you have a source for this insight? It would really be great if we could attribute this assertion to an outside source. Incidentally, what is Shakespeare's source for R&J? Thanks, Applejuicefool 16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid that the observation is the distillation of much reading about themes, especially reading how people interpret literary themes. But I added the source, including a quote to show what the original them was. 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Humm. On consideration -- I think Wayne C. Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction was a pivotal book in this matter. Goldfritha 16:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for making those scandalous edits and saving the article. Good job! Is it scandalous if you've now helped to seduce into spending more time on Wikipedia than I should? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't intend it or know -- but you could have taken scandal at my actions, and so it could be passive scandal. 0:) Goldfritha 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this article, I remember reading this story when I was a kid. However, your synopsis needs work. It should read more like a summary and less like a children's poem, as this is an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, bravo! Squigish 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think it needs more work -- sure, go ahead. I knew this was Wikipedia when I submitted it. Goldfritha 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've been using "&mdash" a lot. It'll save you a lot of typing, and be more Wikipedia compliant, if you click on the long dash symbol from the Insert frame underneath the edit frame. Coyoty 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for the claim that the term "stroke" comes from elf-stroke? The OED gives "stroke of God's hand" as the earliest recorded usage, and I can't find any reliable source claiming otherwise. Consequently, I've removed that claim from Fairy and stroke for the time being.

Regards, Nandesuka 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was recently following up some wikilinks I made between Tolkien and Andrew Lang's Blue Fairy Book, and I came across Andrew Lang's Fairy Books and all the redirects you'd made and material you had added. I'm very impressed by this, and I know a lot more now than I did previously about Andrew Lang's work with fairy stories. Tolkien was a friend of Roger Lancelyn Green, who dedicated one of his books ('The Tale of Troy') to his "favorite authors": Andrew Lang and H. Rider Haggard who co-wrote The World's Desire (a retelling of the Troy story I thought, though the article suggests I am wrong on this). Tolkien also wrote a letter asking for Green's expert opinion on early collections of fairy-stories, and I presume Tolkien must have been much aware of Lang's work and books, as well as delivering the 1939 Andrew Lang lecture. I also followed up the "See also" links at the bottom of East of the Sun and West of the Moon, and was very gratified to see Tolkien mentioned at Black Bull of Norroway, which, as the article said, he mentioned in his essay On Fairy-Stories. Do you think it is worth adding more links in the right places between the Andrew Lang material and Tolkien's essay? Carcharoth 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien certainly knew about Lang's books; in "On Fairy Tales" he describes them in several places. I think it would be quite interesting to add more links -- though I myself am still working on the fairy stories. Goldfritha 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I will note that the Andrew Lang books were indeed children's books. That's part of Tolkien's complaints about them. Goldfritha 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry about that. Do you agree that the article is no longer a stub, though? Maybe the "children's books" aspect can be covered by placing the article in an appropriate category? (As I've now done). Carcharoth 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. (Me, I'm still trying to master the arcane differences between stubs and non-stubs. Or perhaps, the arcane differences between what gets tagged as stubs, and what doesn't. 0:) Goldfritha 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on the Child ballads is exemplary, and is some of the greatest work I have seen on Wikipedia. You are to be congratulated. Huzzah! ---Charles 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Goldfritha 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely welcome. ---Charles 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I just saw you making new ones while watching Special:Newpages. It's great to see these reaching Wikipedia. Choess 01:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on that one. I knew that what I'd written wasn't right but didn't know how to correct it. Jonathan Tweet 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For contributing so much to the Child Ballads articles, which I have recently discovered. You truly deserve the original barnstar. Keep up the wonderful work! -- Underneath-it-All 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D Goldfritha 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldfritha, I noticed you when you found an old and lost pic of Ragnar Lodbrok and reinserted it. Checking your edits I have seen that you are one of those hard-working, vandalism-reverting, and polite users who should be admins but have not yet been asked and may be too modest to nominate themselves. Are you interested in becoming an admin? I could nominate you if you'd like to.--Berig 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and for thinking I would be good -- I've looked over the page about admins and am not sure -- I will certainly decide over the weekend. Goldfritha 01:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goldfritha, I believe you should use edit summaries more often. In my experience, those who use edit summaries in 95% edits or even less often are unlikely to succeed on RfA. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humm. Well, I think I would like to be a Wikipedian a little longer before I try for admin, not having being editting for a year now -- Still, thanks for the offer, Berig. Goldfritha 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point you to my query on the Divine Comedy talk page. If you have any information about the image you considered especially appropriate for this article section (or if you have any information about what the image is, since no useful info is there at wikimedia), please respond. Thanks. Wareh 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some pastoral works of fiction depict life in an imaginary Arcadia as being a continuation of life in the Golden Age; the shepherds of such a land have not allowed themselves to be corrupted into civilization.

Could you cite your sources? Not only this is the WP rule, I also wonder what works feature the Golden Age Pictureuploader 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. I should have kept them handy and done it up front. I will have to look them up and it will take some time. Sorry. Goldfritha 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have anything in particular that you would like neutralized on the premillennialism article? I haven't felt like anything was said that isn't in a standard theological encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a theological encyclopedia, let alone a standard one. You should revise your standards for inclusion accordingly. Goldfritha 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you have an interest in getting involved, but A Book of Mermaids is having its notability challenged. I guess, hypothetically, this could eventually lead to the article being deleted, which would open the door for all of the articles on the Ruth Manning-Sanders books being deleted. So, just wanted to give you a heads up in case you wanted to join the fledgling discussion. Otto1970 05:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Goldfritha 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to comment on the Wizard (fantasy) article. I do not like that article at all, and the one editor who works on it and thinks he owns it is particularly irritating to try and negotiate with. (I won't name names, well..unless you ask, of course...:) I don't like the overkill focus on D&D (doesn't need two sections on that) and I don't like the "wise old man" copied word for word from it's original article, and I don't see a need to separate out fantasy Wizards from "real world" Wizards, nor a need to build some artificial wall between magic users when the "titles" such as "wizard" or "magician" or even "jedi" are used interchangably throughout fiction, fantasy, sci-fi and even real life.

I don't even like the wizard disambig page. It's weird.

Well, dang, I didn't mean to write that much. Guess I have a lot more thoughts on the subject than I thought! I have to agree with you and Snowfire over there. Let me see how I can assist. Thanks for the invite, and sorry to bend your ear like this! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't an administrator move the history? If not, I don't really see how it's important anyway, to tell the truth...the important stuff can be saved on the current article's talk page or in an archive. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lordy, this guy argues over everything doesn't he? Writes long, extended, hard to read monologues, then then edit wars on top of it. This is why I quit editing the article a long time ago, it's just not worth it. Dreadlocke ☥

Well, if he ever ignores a consensus on a RFC, there are higher authorities that can be invoked. Goldfritha 00:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And thus far, consensus doth not goeth his way... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humm. Humm. Humm.

Do you think a RFC on him, as a user, is suitable? Goldfritha 00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's done something more egregious than in the current discussion, I don't think it's time for a user RfC on him. We'll see how it goes after the redirect/delete RfC is over. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this: since Magicians in fantasy was apparently created from information culled from Magician and Wizard (fantasy), and according to jc37 who created the article, there is little to no content from Wizard (fantasy), then why do we even need an article that is mostly a copy of Magician? I think we need to move all the content from Magicians in fantasy to Magician, delete the first and redirect Wizard (fantasy) to Magician. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll expand it. Then it will not longer be a copy of Magician. 0:)

(Actually, I want to work on it but didn't want to deal with jc37's reverts all the time, so I want to get the article settled first. And the magician article actually has quite a bit that he didn't copy, and there are several sections in the magicians in fantasy were added after his edits.)

There are two issues: first, putting historical and fantasy magicians into one article might make for confusion, and second, the major one, is that I don't think jc37 will be happy with a redirect to Magician. As far as I can tell, the edit wars are stemming from an idiosyncratic view of what the term "wizard" means -- jc37 repeatedly has said that the type of wizards are distinct.

The second one is, of course, not a reason against a merge but a reason why it might not clear up the dispute. 0:) Goldfritha 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the redirect to the proper location! I believe we have consensus as well as Wikipedia policy and guideline on our side. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should continue arguing with him over the redirect issue, unless he tries to change it back. I disagree with every single one of the points in his last edit, including the part about WP:AGF. Let me know if you think differently. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not feeling the least urge to argue myself, unless he takes silence for consent and changes it. (Man, what WP:OWN issues!) Goldfritha 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He started again. This time he's un-archived (or is it de-archived? :) the entire talk page. Yep, definite ownership issues. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joy and rapture.

We could let it go as long as he doesn't take silence for consent. Or we could -- let me see, I was asking about this here and got some suggestions. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#All_parties

And there's RFC on him, rather than the article, too. Goldfritha 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried the very long-winded, somewhat repetitive approach to see if I can get my (our) points across. I'm sure he'll just "cherry-pick" my comments and try to respond to individual sentences rather than the over-all message I was trying to present. If this one fails...well, he just has to go to mediation! I read your RfC messages, Centrix is a very helpful and knowlegable admin - he can be a big help! A good question to ask is "what is consensus?" Is it all editors finally agreeing, or is it majority/supermajority? And what about just a small group - say a group of only three or four editors where only a single one is the hold-out. What would be the next step? Mediation or Admin intervention? I hope it's the latter... <sigh> Dreadlocke ☥ 07:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we have consensus nailed down hard enough to make it "Admin intervention." (Sometime about unwillingness on editors to deal with this, I suspect.) Mediation, certainly -- if he tries something besides quarreling on the talk page. Goldfritha 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, the consensus was nailed down hard on the "delete" issue, and it was agreed that the history should be preserved. The latest act dissolves the connection between the redirect and its history. Goldfritha 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made a request. You may look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wizard (fantasy). Goldfritha 04:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every prophecy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the very actions that are taken in order to avoid the perceived prophecy are what set in motion the chain of events by which the prophecy is fulfilled. I think rather than using silent piped links, it would be best to briefly describe why a certain prophecy is self-fulfilling in each case, with a direct link. --Wetman 07:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you have a problem with an article, that you then mention that article. And since, yes, the very actions undertaken to prevent Telephus from fulfilling the oracle caused him to, it's a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Goldfritha 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am sorry to be imprecise: it was at Telephus. I've left a note at Talk:Telephus expanding on what I posted just above, since I think it's unclear in many people's minds. --Wetman 12:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your excellent work on the Magicians in fantasy article. - Dreadlocke ☥ 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :D Goldfritha 00:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, don't that beat all! This definitely violates the spirit of the discussion, and is just a cheap trick. Let's see if we can't get it put back. I'm tempted to put in a user conduct RfC on this guy - this just goes beyond the bounds of how Wikipedia operates - by consensus and discussion, and following the Dispute Resolution steps. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you do, you can be sure that I will be there to confirm -- with details -- that he's been a problem. (They need two editors to complain to validate a request, so we have to coordinate it and make sure we can both post in the time frame). Goldfritha 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened with the Admin notice board entry on this? Dreadlocke ☥ 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything with no new entries over a day old gets deleted.

You mentioned talking with an admin about the delete issue. Maybe you could go directly to him?

Otherwise, I think our options are the Request for Comment on the user. Goldfritha 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from the admin yet. Not sure what's up, he's usually good at responding. Perhaps if you weighed in too: complaint. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin said he saw our conversation about he ANI entry, and was going to let it get decided there. I responded that the ANI request was removed because it went over the time-limit before anyone responded to it. Dreadlocke ☥

I put a new request on the ANI board and got an unsatisfactory response. I'm not certain they understand or want to deal with the issue. We can't go to mediation as the one admin suggests if jc37 doesn't respect us or the process, he's already bypassed the dispute resolution process, which includes mediation! They may not want to deal with it because there is so much to it. I certainly hope I never have to deal with jc37 again after this. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think if we could move back the history and point it to "Magicians in fantasy" we could go on from there. But then, I proposed moving "Wizard (fantasy)" to "Magicians in fantasy" as a compromise.Goldfritha 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:RM looks like a good next step. Why don't we first undo what jc37 has done, and then go from there. Can you put in the request? I've got too many irons in the fire at the moment and I'm afraid my hair will catch alight if I try to keep'em too hot!  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Islamic marital jurisprudence talks of dowry. You hold this is incorrect. Whilst that page labels it dowry I expect editors to try to fix the entry at dowry by readding it. Paul foord 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Plopped a comment on the discussion page. Goldfritha 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at List of fairy tales for French ones? Goldfritha 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not know about that really nice resource, thank you Goldfritha!Goldenrowley 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's obviously a dispute. I'm no mediator but it got brought to the admin's noticeboard so you got me. I've archived the previous stuff at Talk:List of wizards in fantasy, it was getting long and I could not make head nor tail of it. Now sometimes that is seen as a contentious move so let me reassure I'm not trying to close off debate, I'm just trying to wipe the slate clean and start again. Any issue you want to take from the archives and paste back on the talk page, please do so. What I would ask is that you don't right now. If you give me a week to try this attempt to resolve the dispute, then I'll move off if no headway is made. You can of course tell me to butt out now and I won't mind, I have better things to do now. What I would like, is for someone from either side help me out and explain what content has been moved where and where they think it should go. Keep it simple and don't point fingers, let's focus on the content. And pick one section to edit, A or B and don't edit the other. Just your own point of view, nothing responding to the other side at this point. Maybe if we work through this we can work out the best way to solve it. I have the impression it might all get solved by the requested move process, but I want to make sure the page history is all in one place so that the requested move can be set up properly. Then I suggest all sides allow a consensus to be built on the requested move and we work form there. I'm going to be taking the view that we request the move from where the content is now. That's not an endorsement, rather think of it as a wrong version issue. I hope this issue can get sorted out, because continuing disputes do no-one any favours. Thanks for your time. Steve block Talk 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I've had to withdraw from this, I apologise for messing you about. I simply don't feel like I have the time and energy to devote to mediation. As I indicated above, I'm not a mediator. I feel you may be best served requesting a move through requested move and seeking mediation, if you can get all parties to agree. Good luck, and once again I apologise. Steve block Talk 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice RM! Hopefully it will go through without issue. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope so, but we had best watch it. (Then, you noticed it even before I alerted you to it.) Goldfritha 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's to be done with the contents of "lists of magicians in fantasy"? Will it be moved back to "Wizard (fantasy) as well? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

splitting out such a list from such an article would be fine, so I think letting it stand would be best -- unless it would convince jc37, in which case, merge. Goldfritha 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No action on the move yet, eh? Also, my thought is that the RfD tag isn't for the "list" article, but for the Wizard (fantasy) redirect. Perhaps you're right, it should be left but we have to make it clear that the "keep" was referring to the redirect and not the article it's currently on - a very important distinction, I would think. Then again, I'm recovering from the flu, and my brain is not what it should be yet... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's really for the history, which is what has been moved, so the delete request should follow it. Besides, the link lets us refer to the debate.

Did you see the latest comments? jc37 seems to think his parading of his history of edits means something. Goldfritha 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's weird. I have no idea what his diffs are supposed to prove. Sounds like Steve Block has a solid grip on what's happening. I just don't understand how jc37 can't see it...or maybe he just won't admit it. I like the way he's opposing the move (back) of the original move we opposed, an opposition which he ignored. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, no action on the RM yet. Wonder what the problem is? Has anyone communicated anything to you? (besides the usual suspects, that is?...heh) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Jc37 chiming in, they may have decided that the move is controversial. Goldfritha 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if they let us know. If that fails, then what? Can we have the current Wizard (fantasy) article deleted (it has no history and no function, really). Then move the lists page back and clean up the content from there? This is really ridiculous that he just does with impunity, and we have to beg for scraps. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could do it too. It just wouldn't be right. Goldfritha 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other way is there besides convincing Mr. Unconvincible? I think what he did was wrong and we're just putting the pieces back to where they belong. I think it's wrong of us to just let him get away with such an abuse. Hmph. :D Dreadlocke ☥ 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they did find it controversial, [1], so that's not gonna work. I propose we move "Wizard (fantasy)" to "Fantasy wizards" as a redirect as is, then move "list of magicians" to "Wizard (fantasy)", create another "list of magicians", copy paste the contents there, then put the redirect back to what it was originally. THEN we're back to where we were before the violation by jc, and we can discuss from that point. What do you think? Dreadlocke ☥ 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving creates a redirect. If we can move over it, we can just move "List" back to "Wizard (fantasy)". Goldfritha 02:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should move "list" on top of Wizard (fantasy), then create a new "list" to cut/paste the content to? Or visa-versa? I'm not real clear on what you mean...heck, I'm not real clear on what I said either... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't move it to an existing article name, I tried it: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists," Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that "undiscussed moves" discussion, I hope something comes out of that - but it doesn't really look like it will. I'm not sure what I'm looking for on the discussion page for Magician (fantasy) about this, what am I missing? Dreadlocke ☥ 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there are still redirects on the talk pages too - (on the Wizard (fantasy) discussion page...redirected to Talk:Magician (fantasy). Dreadlocke ☥ 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, it look like we actually got the move we asked for! Or am I missing something? Now we need to create a new "List of fantasy wizards", right? Dreadlocke ☥ 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Och! We did get our move! I didn't see the final decision, even though it was outlined in a big green block! Hurrah!! Huzzah! Now, what next?  :-D Dreadlocke ☥ 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our move? The history of "Wizard (fantasy)" is still at "List of wizards in fantasy". That was the only move I was interested in. Goldfritha 02:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, guess I'm totally confused now. Who requested that move? Or was it just a mistake? Dreadlocke ☥ 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just a mistake. I think that he went to move the magic, got redirected, and didn't realize it.

I made a comment on his talk page. Goldfritha 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, I actually left instructions. Please check them out and make sure they're right...Dreadlocke ☥ 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now jc's contradicting himself in the same post: [2]. Sheesh. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Goldfritha!

I've got a little more time to work with ballads, now; so I have started making short articles about the 263 Swedish ones contained in Sveriges Medeltida Ballader. (It's slow work; I've about 240 left to do; I do appreciate your enormous work with the Child ballads, even more than before.) I've got a couple of questions; and as usual (lacking that 'popular ballads project') I find it most useful to start by asking you directly.

• First: Are the 'spoiler warnings' at synopses really sensible, in articles like e.g. Robin_Hood's Golden Prize? Spontaneously, I think the most accurate warning before a synopsis of a couple of lines would be "Spoiler warning: This synopsis contains a synopsis", or something like that. I do notice that there has been some discussion of this at WP:SW, without a real resolution. Well, since this is a minor point, and partly about good taste; and since the WP motto doesn't seem to be De gustibus non disputandem but rather the converse, I'll leave it for now. Anyhow, I'm not including any spoiler warnings in my summary sections.

• Second: I think that articles about the same 'ballad type' (as more or less well defined by ballad researchers) in different languages should be wikisister articles. Each one should fokus on the variants in its own language, if there are such; but mention the others, and perhaps add information of plot differences, if they are of sufficient relevance. In other words, both Child, Grundtvig, and modern ballad researchers recognise that The Twa Sisters and De två systrarna are 'the same ballad', but in different languages; therefore, there should not be separate articles in English for them (and yet another for the Danish Den talende strængelek, et cetera). Instead, they should be set up as versions of each others, but with somewhat different emphasis. The ballad lists should be given in all the different languages, but the 'foreign' titles should redirect to the proper 'native' pages. I've more or less fixed Child 10 and Child 22 in this way; but I have not added sections Parallels in other languages to 'your' articles (yet).

This policy does not apply for ballads which only exist in one language, as I believe the Robin Hood Child ballads do. Someone included stubs for some of these in Swedish; and whether retained as separate items or being treated in a common article, they should of course be named in English and refer to the English texts.

Do you generally agree with this organisation?

• Third: I think it is better to separate long lists of ballad titles from the main articles themselves. I thus did separate sv:Lista över Sveriges Medeltida Ballader from the main Swedish article sv:Sveriges Medeltida Ballader; and I think I'd like to try the same with Child ballads, if you don't mind. As it now is, Child ballads does not end with its ballad list; but the text after that list is likely to get lost. What do you think?

• Forth: Do you actually happen to own (or else have easy access to) The English and Scottish Popular Ballads? I've looked in some copy once, and found a number of references to nordic ballads there. One of my trouble is to find an actual list of the correspondences; they are not always as obvious as for The Twa Sisters or St. Stephen and Herod.

• Fifth and finally: Do you know anything about an edition of Danish ballads (in English?) by a Dr. Prior, mentioned here?

Yours, JoergenB 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heartily agree that the "same" ballad in different languages is proper for wikisister.

A list certainly would help keep things organized.

I can get English and Scottish Popular Ballads out of the library. If you have specific questions, I can look them up much faster, but I can certainly look through it for information.

No, except that because it is in quotes, the actual title of the work is probably Danish Ballads. Goldfritha 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I separated a List of the Child Ballads, and added || (i.e., 'parallel') information for The Twa Sisters. What do you think?--JoergenB 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Goldfritha 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again!

• I remembered I had some old ballad collection fragment in English somewhere; searched, and found that it actually was volume II (out of five) of a diplomataric edition of The English and Scottish... by Dover publications, Inc, New York, 1965! So, I should search through odd places in my book shelfs before I send you off to the library... This volume contains Child ballads 54–113, and a few 'additions and corrections' to older volumes. The only red link I found in that rank was number 56, which I filled with Dives and Lazarus (ballad).

I was actually both encouraged and a bit disappointed by going through Child's comments to the ballads. He does discuss parallels, both Scandinavian and others, providing good ground for a number of See also's. However, his types and the TSB types seem to coincide less frequently than I hoped and thought. Thus, I now estimate that it is possible to have a merged article for the same ballad type in English and Scandinavian languages for less than 10 % of the Child ballads, if we follow the typing as read off directly from Child's comments. I actually hoped that most of them should be found equal by this simple manoevre. (I still haven't checked the type translation listings on Svenskt visarkiv; this may or may not improve things.)

• I am still working with the (Swedish version of) list of Swedish medieval ballads, but not so actively lately. I got some criticism for putting a too large emphasis on the historical side as compared to the usage in current tradition (in the few cases where there is one, as for some Christmas carol and jocular ballads), and I've not yet decided how to handle this. I might want to rewrite the thirty-odd articles I have, before writing the other 230.

• I got a letter from Utgard Loki (talk · contribs); see User talk:JoergenB#The Types of the Scandinavian Medieval Ballad; who seems to be rather interested in the old ballads, and in some ballad collections; referring to the Bagford Ballads, which I never have heard of. Perhaps we should make some un-tabelled, rather raw list of all old collections we know of or have seen references to, with or without wiki articles? To begin with, just for 'our own use', on a discussion page (Talk:List of folk song collections?) or on a Wikipedia: page somewhere?--JoergenB 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion in which you voted, that of Template:Catholic-link, is up for deletion review, where the template may be deleted or retained depending upon the review discussion. You are welcome to comment and/or vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link. The key point of this discussion is whether the "default keep by no consensus" result was correct; discussion of the template itself is secondary (but may still be important). — coelacan talk — 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the poverty article would benefit from this Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive --since you have help a lot with it please cast your vote.futurebird 17:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here You might be interested since you kindly pointed its existance out to me. Johnbod 17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfritha, thanks for restoring the mention of those templates to WP:RFC. Not wanting to edit-war, I had put a note on Centrx's talk page asking for reconsideration, but, since Centrx had apparently logged off for the night, I might have sat the long hours chewing my fingernails to the elbows, making my typing skills even more abysmal, impossible as that may sound. Thus my fingers, hands, wrists, and forearms owe you a great debt of gratitude. Thanks again! -- Ben 04:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- I just happened to notice the problem in my watchlist. Goldfritha 15:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a really good article you've worked on there. I've made a comment on the FAC page about the lack of Roland Barthes but I wouldn't take that too seriously. Hope the article passes!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you: What do you think my supposed agenda is in adding Chinese material to the Knight-errant page? As I’ve previously stated, I am a westerner and not Chinese. However, as you put it, “Being a westerner does not demonstrate that [I] have no agenda.” You’ve got me curious now. Is it because I’m fighting to keep my fully cited material on the page? I would fight for any cited material on the knight-errant article to stay. Is it because medieval historians are weary about classifying aspects of other cultures in European terms (like the whole mess about the Indian feudalism thing)? If I personally was assigning these terms to the warriors of China, I would be in conflict with Chinese historians, right? However, I’m not making the term up; it was Chinese historians and teachers of comparative literature that entitled these warriors “Knights-errant” themselves. Is it because my participation in various Asian-based wikiprojects makes you think I'm biased in someway? Well, if you go to my user page, you will also see that I belong to medieval history and warfare projects as well. I love reading about the crusades and have many books on the subject. In fact, I'm an athiest, but yet I belong to several religious wikiprojects. What else could it be? Please enlighten me. (Ghostexorcist 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goldfritha,

I noticed your work on another WP article and I was wondering if you could provide some feedback on the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I nominated it in the FAC process and am interested in getting your opinion about it. Thank you so much for any help! I really appreciate it! LaSaltarella 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		To Goldfritha, for answering all comers during FAC review and making Fairy tale a featured article. Well done! -Susanlesch 20:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya beat me to it...;) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. :D Goldfritha 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never nominated an AfD before, and the procedure looks rather daunting. Would you be willing to do it? If not, I guess I'll take a stab at it. Let me know on my Talk page, please. Deor 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up. You can go comment. 0:) Goldfritha 01:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Deor 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought Magic Sword should have a dictionary article too, didn't know that was the wrong process.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you like stories so i would like you to know about the Story of the day project The goal of the project is too have a new story every day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Story_of_the_day

I would like it if you could spread the word and participate

please tell me on my user page when you get this message

by the way my user name is Java7837

I'm very sorry for the protocol violation. I was trying to get to this page and didn't find it. Your user page said that you are not very communicative, so I thought you might not have a user talk page and did not keep looking long enough (obviously). I'm still trying to get used to the navigation here. Please don't hold it against me as rudeness or sabotage, just ignorance (or hopeless stupidity, if you prefer). I am trying to avoid making mistakes and only wanted more clarification of why we should not capitalize "Gods". Anyway, the Faroe stamps at Ragnarok were very cool. Again, my heartfelt apologies. Remiguisburg 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the explanation in my edit summary: common noun. Goldfritha 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm not mistaken (part of) the following text is yours: "Third phase - Main article: Synod of Whitby - The Roman missionaries coming to England in the time of St. Gregory the Great found the British Christians, the representatives of that Christianity which had been introduced into Britain during the period of the Roman occupation, still adhering to an ancient system of Easter computation which Rome itself had laid aside. The British and Irish Christians were not Quartodecimans, for they kept the Easter festival upon a Sunday. They are supposed (e.g. by Krusch) to have observed an eighty-four year cycle and not the five-hundred and thirty-two year cycle of Victorius which was adopted in Gaul, but the most recent investigator of the question (Schwartz, p. 103) declares it to be impossible to determine what system they followed and himself inclines to the opinion that they derived their rule for the determining of Easter direct from Asia Minor."

Could you give me more specification or where to find the text by Schwartz on the direct link with Asia Minor? Harry Stoteles 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops.

The wonders of cut-and-paste. That comes directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia. You can find the link at the bottom of the article, and it has more info. Goldfritha 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion to Magic item[3] didn't quite make sense to me. These are very specific examples such as the flying carpet and seven-league boots. Clearly these aren't general categories. So, why the attachment to the word "types"? Also, what was wrong with the rest of the text? -Harmil 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those types are very general, encompassing a great many magical items, with a great deal of variety, under their rubrics. Goldfritha 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your article thing on Flowerpotman's page about how deletion is not vandalsim and YOU ARE RIGHT!!!! i think it is to improve... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WOW Teeandbee77 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I apreciate your extensive work on fairy tale articles I thus award you one of the most weirdest of awards the not stupid award

		The Not Stupid Award
		This medal is awarded to Goldfritha for knowing how to prove that two is greater than one. You know one of the simplest proofs in the world! Great job!

I've been noticing some good material being added by yourself (I aprticularly like the bit about RH being an amalgam of whatever the storyteller at the time deems important), but we cannot keep anything that is not cited material. We cannot offer primary references - ie, our own thoughts on the subject, but instead must offere secondary sources: other people's words as they relate to Robin Hood. I think that what you said must have been said by someone else. Until then, however, we cannot keep it, and it has to go. I won't delete the text until this afternoon, giving you a chance to source the material. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What are you talking about? I have been editting the Robin Hood article for prose flow. I have not being adding anything -- referenced or not. Goldfritha 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it -- what is wrong with a "citation needed" tag? No, there is no need to slice out information without references. Ask for references instead. Goldfritha 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Ludwig van Beethoven was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

— Pious7_Talk^Contribs 10:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I noticed you reverted my removal of the spoiler warning in the synopsis section of the Three Billy Goats Gruff article. I really believed the anon who put it there was just making a joke, and I still do, so seing that you put it back in surprised me. I'm really curious to know what purpose you see that tag makes there. I mean, the synopsis section is actually telling the whole story. It's not longer than that. So if you read the 5-lines synopsis section you have actually read the whole fairy tale. So, why do you think we need to warn our readers with that tag? Who do you envice will take the warning seriously and not read the 5-line fairy tale because they want to save the excitement for later? I belive nobody will take it seriously, and that's why I see the tag as a joke. Shanes 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my edit to Wizard of Oz - I really shouldn't have claimed similarities between it and The Wizard of Id until I find a source. I pulled it until I find one.

However, it's tough going. All of the online biographies of Brant Parker or Johnny Hart make no mention of where the name came from. I've put in a request to their syndicate in order to ask the question, but even if I get a response, that's independent research. I'm stumped. Would you have any suggestions on helping me find a citation?

--KNHaw ^(talk) 17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be hard, finding references. The only thing I can recommend is hunting through books on comics; the oddest one might have a reference. Find out what Dewey Decimal numbers are for comics, and check the index for the books there. Goldfritha 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --KNHaw ^(talk) 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goldfritha, I may have misunderstood the concept of Fairy godmother and I have nothing about being reverted if I make a mistake. However, in your summary you wrote rv insertion of wildly unsuitable information, and since you make such strong an exclamation, I have to ask you about it. The article itself says: The fairy godmother has her roots in the figures of the Fates, and the inserted examples dealt with supernatural ladies who arrive at the birth of the protagonist and keep influencing his or her life. Could you please inform me as to why you consider the connection widely unsuitable?--Berig 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about "supernatural ladies who arrive at the birth of the protagonist and keep influencing his or her life". It is about fairy godmothers.

As for the "roots" comment you cited -- birds evolved from dinosaurs. It would not be suitable to dump a large section on dinosaurs in general into the birds article. Goldfritha 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to explain my addition of the text. I thought and think that the examples are good cases of the transition of pagan Fates into the tradition of fairy godmothers, or to use your metaphor: examples of archaeopteryx and feathered dinosaurs in a bird article. Anyway, it does not matter much. If the contribution was not appreciated, I regret having done it.--Berig 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although wikipedia policy on galleries is not totally unambiguous it has a fairly clear presumption against the inclusion of galleries (although now inactive see Wikipedia:Galleries#Policy). I see images in Wikipedia as illustrative rather than providing content in and of themselves as wikipedia is not a collection of images free from comment - WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. As all the images provided on the Thomas Cole page are available in the Wikimedia Commons it seemed sensible to simple direct the reader there - where in addition to the category a gallery is available with works arranged chronologically. I have no wish to enter into a conflict so I will of course not revert your reversion, but I hope you might reconsider you position (as I did when someone originally deleted a gallery of mine). Madmedea 08:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfritha, just a suggestion. When adding images, also include information about who created the artwork, where the artwork is from (English, French, etc..), what period (ca. 14th C), what medium it was from (tapestry, oil or panel painting etc..), where the artwork is kept (Museum of xyz) along with some text that ties it into the article or section where it is being placed, in such a way that says something new and adds to the article - space is limited and image captions are some of the most powerful mediums for conveying important information about the topic of the article. All of these things also help ensure your image will "last for the ages" and not be replaced by other editors some time in the future. -- Stbalbach 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do add captions to tie it to the rest of the article. As for the rest, any user who is interested can look it up in commons -- if the uploader provided it. If not, well, I don't have it any more than anyone else. Goldfritha 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please present your contentions regarding the cite in contention? The other user has done so. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth? This could be the most unthinking edit I've seen on Wikipedia this year. Pray tell how this edit improves the encyclopedia in any way whatsoever. I'm most interested to hear - David Gerard 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have reiterated my comments where you suggested.Smatprt 03:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do not canvass for favorable votes in regards to the spoilers issue, especially not from users who have been blocked due to edit warring over said issue. [4] David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the 87-IP from the spoiler discussion. I was blocked again, this time for initiating a vandalism report against an admin who suppressed my comments on WP:ANI: [5], [6], [7] (Oh, and he changed the discussion too: [8])

This whole thing is either:

1. completely ok; good for me, I got finally rid of my Wikipedia addiction! Keep it up!
2. completely not ok; well, someone should do something. I certainly don't feel like heading back into the fight right now.

Hi, Goldfritha!

A Norwegian folklorist happened to link to what he thought was an article about a song and associated game which has well known parallels in Scandinavia: Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush. However, this is about a movie (and to judge from the article history, the early authors didn't recognise the title as a reference to e.g. a nursery rhyme). I looked into it a little, and also found a theory stated as a fact, that the rhyme derives from female inmates in Wakefield's prison. If you have time, would you please check up on this? I stated the issues and gave some links and other references at Talk:Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush.

Best regards, JoergenB 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. More and more... I thought I was original when I came up with "Goldfritter," but I keep on encountering individuals with similar nicks. Not that you care. Um. Sorry. Goldfritter 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. That was random. Goldfritter 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldfritha! Just to warn you that there is a new legendary beast on the rampage, seemingly related to the notorious trolls of Norway. It goes by the name of the 'Dreamguy' and is currently rampaging wildly on the Werewolf fiction page on the ultimate blind revert spree. Anyway, I was just thinking that maybe this legendary creature should receive a new designation as 'Nightmare guy'. What do you think? Colin4C 09:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Roots music The goal of WikiProject Roots music is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Roots, Folk, and Traditional music available on Wikipedia. WikiProject Roots music as a group does not prefer any particular tradition of Roots, Folk, or Traditional music, but prefers that all traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

I thought you might be interested, especially because of the discussion of the Child Ballads on the talk page at the moment.

-- TimNelson 07:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On May 7th of this year, at 14:37, the user page User:Dr Spam (MD) was created. Within a period of 48 hours, User:Dr Spam (MD) had placed approximately 55 barnstars on user pages and user talk pages. Many recipients doubted the sincerity of the sentiments behind these barnstars, in part because of the comments placed by Dr Spam on the barnstars. A sampling of the reasons that Dr. Spam offered for presenting barnstars to editors:

• Hi - I am putting this here in case there's trouble later. Please accept this tireless barnstar thing for all of your wiki-activity. Thanks. User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:08, 11 May 2007

• nice one! User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi I am leaving you with this barnstar for you to reflect carefully on. I will provide the citation in a few days once you have had the opportunity to consider why I might think that you deserve it. Peace User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done for all of your fantastic editing / writing: you are obviously a genius of our day, shining like the brightest barnstar against a dark barnnight in these new and difficult wiki-times. I therefore award you the surreal barnstar (I can't get the other barnstars to work properly - my apologies.) Please note that you have no right to remove the barnstar, for it is sacred. LEAVE WELL ALONE! Many thanks.

• awesome contribution to this web site! have a lovely barnstar thing User:Dr Spam (MD) 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• cool editing

• Awesome

• Cool.

• I am awarding you a surreal barnstar because you obviously deserve it! Keep up the good work - don't slacken off, it'll get harder before it gets easier!

• Hy my cat (the fat white one) is awarding you this barnstar of diligence because he doesn't eat fish either. He just likes to eat biscuits - or so he says. But how then does he get so fat????

Occasionally Dr. Spam's comments did appear sincere (if vague), but a review of the record indicates that sincere-appearing comments were generally generated during a massive cut-and-paste session. There were also many barnstars presented with no comments at all, and even more that User:Dr Spam (MD) presented without signing his name to indicate from whom the award was coming.

In response, once this pattern of apparent insincerity was established, a few experienced editors asked Dr. Spam to desist from barnstar spamming, in the belief that randomly awarding barnstars devalues the entire barnstar program. (Indeed, so random was the placement of barnstars, that some were even placed on wiki accounts that had not been active for over a year.) Dr. Spam has now stopped, presumably recognizing that his efforts were not appreciated by the majority of editors.

Most of the barnstars placed by Dr. Spam during his May campaign have been voluntarily removed by the editors on whose pages they were placed. You are receiving this notice because Dr. Spam's barnstar still remains on your page. If you feel that Dr. Spam's barnstar spamming was a form of mockery, you may choose to remove it yourself. But if the way this barnstar was "awarded" does not bother you, you are of course free to keep it on your page. After all, it is your page. This notification was simply for your information. HuskyHuskie 13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've nominated The Maid Freed from the Gallows for Good Article status. Please review it to see if there's anything more you think is required. Cheers (and good work)! bd2412 T 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The King o' the Cats, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The King o' the Cats. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongomatic (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Bongomatic (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Quibble (computing), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

There seems to be no evidence of this being a term used in the quantum computing research community. The article has no references either. If this term can be verified, it should be mentioned on the qubit page, it does not need its own page (WP:NOTDIC).

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Robin (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Quibble (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Robin (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Hobyahs, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/meft/meft27.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goldfritha. You have new messages at Talk:The Hobyahs.
Message added 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Are you by any chance the Fritha I know from fantasy/SF conventions? If so, you'll know who this is (to put it mildly), and "Hi!"; if not, no harm (but I do hope you get to them, wherever you live). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid not. Goldfritha (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!

I've also given you reviewer rights; see WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Centaurs in popular culture, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/pda/A31189557?s_split=1&s_id=8.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People should thank you for your great work on the above article - so I'll be the first, then! The article had been huge. Well done for being bold.

PS Talking of which - minor aside - wonder if you'd been considering {{Archiveme}}? Trafford09 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no, because I've not been doing much there -- and I'd have to look up how to do it.Goldfritha (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, popping in because I saw the request. If you'd like I could setup an archivebot for the page, and then you won't have to worry about it anymore? --Elonka 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing great work on the Nazi propaganda article. I'm pleased to see material from my site being put to good use. One comment: A recent edit cites http://www.transdiffusion.org/rmc/features/hitlers_radio.php to the effect that all the Volksempfänger could get was propaganda and radio speeches. Not really true. The sets were designed to receive only German domestic stations — but Goebbels knew that an exclusive diet of propaganda wouldn't hold listeners, so although there was propaganda and speeches, they were not the majority of the programing at most times. The next bit on radio wardens isn't quite right either. The primary job wasn't to oversee people in public.

But as I said, you've done great things to improve the article, which I was reluctant to do, given the obvious difficulty of citing my own work. Bytwerk (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I doublechecked that -- and I think someone else added it. (Which can be hard to tell looking at the history!) Goldfritha (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense — those edit histories can get confusing. I'll fix it eventually if you don't get around to it. Bytwerk (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been populating Category:Collectors of fairy tales, which I see you created, and every time I do I think Category:Collectors of folklore might be a better name. 'Fairy tales' excludes collectors of material that might not be described that way, as a stem of children's literature, but I think that is more to do with how it might be presented when published. This sort of field research is interesting, probably deserving of an article, including that would remove the need to have a definition of the cat's members. What do you think? cygnis insignis 11:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly it excludes those whose material is not fairy tales -- that was the intention. What about your proposed "collectors of folklore" diffentiates it from "folklorists"? And if there is such a difference, why not just create a different, additional category? Goldfritha (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this article watchlisted for a while, and have been really impressed with your recent expansion of it. Keep up the good work! Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it!Goldfritha (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Madame d'Aulnoy, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lamia in popular culture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced collection of trivia violating WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lamia in popular culture 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/Lamia in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Crusio (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Goldfritha-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I know you've worked on the above article, so I thought I'd canvass your opinion

re Talk:Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Further_splitting_into_sub-articles.

If you'd care to add any views there, that'd be great. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Goldfritha! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The article Erebus in popular culture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an indiscriminate list of passing references to Erebus, or of objects or places merely named for it. None of the works of popular culture here actually treat Erebus in any significant detail. See also Wikipedia:In popular culture.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Psychonaut (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "externity" mean in this sentence from the Shortshanks article you wrote: "King Sturdy said that Shortshanks could summon him by calling his name three times, but should do so only in the last externity"? Most dictionaries I looked in do not even define "externity" because it is such an archaic term, but the Oxford English Dictionary says, "The quality or state of being external or outward." Unfortunately, that does not help me understand what you meant in that Shortshanks article. (There is also a question about the article in its talk page that was added since you last edited the article.) — O'Dea (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have been debating splitting {{Jack}} into {{Jack and the Beanstalk}} and {{Jack the Giant Killer}}. It is unclear how related the topics are and what is more useful. Since you have made a significant number of edits at Jack and the Beanstalk, you might want to get involved in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_characters#Template:Jack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Easter controversy, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Easter controversy and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Easter controversy, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Easter controversy. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Easter controversy with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Easter controversy saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Yamla (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldfritha! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Charity and Charities. Since you had some involvement with the Charity and Charities redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Fairy tale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sadads (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Woodlot (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tritill, Litill, and the Birds has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:V

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goldfritha. 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)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Centaurs in popular culture 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/Centaurs in popular culture 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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was editing the Rassenschande page recently and I noticed that your citations to "Neues Volk" had a link that did not lead to any valid online source. I am here to ask more about that. I noticed that you had taken specific information from the publication. Was there an original document where you found this information, or do you know which issues of Neues Volk this information came from? I would like to try to find these sources, if possible, and fix the citations so they lead directly to the source.

Trmr 19:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elysium in popular culture, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysium in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David of Doncaster 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/David of Doncaster 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 until the discussion has finished.

BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Pot Bears a Son 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/The Pot Bears a Son 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 until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Knight 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. Spinixster (chat!) 09:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]