User talk:Berig/Archive 9 (January 5, 2009 - February 25, 2013)

Saxon Article / Name
Berig, you keep removing my contributions on the etymology of the name Saxon.

If you look to Roman or Greek documents, you don't find 'Saxon'. You do however find 'Sakasena' and similar derivatives. This does not mean the Saxon people didn't exist during the Roman or Greek times, but it does mean that if we are to follow the migration of the people during the Roman period we have to accept that they were called something slightly different.

The Saxon names Westsachsen, Ostsachsen, Südsachsen, Mittelsachsen all preserve the Sakasena root of the English name Saxon. By following the Sachsen, or Sakasena back, the Saxon people can be trace as far back Ban Chao, Strabo, and Pliny.

Understandably, people favour the Anglicized 'Saxon' name rather than the latinized 'Sachsen' as found in Westsachsen, because Saxon is more native, however this leaves the article biased towards a post-Roman empire view of the Saxons.

All references were provided so that the facts could be independently verified. Rather than getting in an edit war, could you look over the section, independently check the given references and help me make the section better (rather than simply removing it without explaination)?

LinuxDude (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nisse trouble
Could you please explain what the issue is here? I don't get it. –Holt T•C 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You ran into other editors who think that Nisse is too ambiguous to be considered mainly another name for Tomte.--Berig (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Any suggestion for what to do? –Holt T•C 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP can be very frustrating, but the best thing might be to wait a few months. Then you can bring the issue up again and ask for other editors' opinions.--Berig (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. –Holt T•C 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima
Hello, I hope you don't mind my intruding but I suggest you disengage from Ottava Rima for a while. You've both made your positions known, and I'm no dispute resolution expert but I don't see either side being swayed any time soon. You could follow his suggestions, which may or may not appease him; or, you could dismiss his suggestions, in which case the FAC director will determine if a consensus exists about whether his suggestions carry any weight.

Your dialog with him probably should move to the talk page of the nomination or even the article talk page as it's making the nomination page pretty intimidating for other reviewers to deal with. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already asked SandyGeorgia to delist the article from FAC. It has lingered there for almost a month now, and due to Ottava Rima it has been a very unpleasant business. In hindsight, it was a gross mistake to try to invest that amount of money and time into writing an FA (just imagine the investment in travelling throughout Sweden taking all those pictures for WP), and I strongly doubt I will try again.--Berig (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to try. We need good editors who are willing to invest in articles as you have. Sometimes FAC is a breeze, and sometimes it is a nightmare. Most people who leave feedback there are doing so in good faith, Ottava Rima included. You know how consensus works—if the consensus is that someone's feedback is undesirable to act on, the article certainly can pass despite it. Withdraw it and take a breather then—I hope to see you return. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Berig, I was coming here to give the exact same advice as Laser brain. I have not read your article, so I can make no judgements about whether there are any issues with it.  I have seen numerous FACs, however, including those in which Ottava Rima has participated.  He is very tenacious, whether he is right or wrong.  It is usually best to respond once, maybe twice, then disengage thereafter, as it is unlikely that his mind will change.  You appear to have provided a good argument at the FAC, which SandyGeorgia will weigh when making her decision.
 * FAC can be overwhelming, but it appears to me that you've handled your first attempt quite well, and the article has gotten a lot of good feedback, which can be rare for a first-time nominator. I don't blame you for feeling a bit wrung-out right now, but keep in mind that it is a wonderful feeling to see an article you've developed reach FA, and even more wonderful when it appears on the main page and you can say - I did that!   We do hope to see you back at FAC again one day....and best of luck with this nomination.  Karanacs (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Laser Brain and Karanacs. Thanks for your kind words, but no one in his right mind invests thousands of dollars and hundreds of working hours for the sake of going through such nightmares. Raul and SandyGeorgia have kept it at FAC for a month although most reviewers have supported it, and how long are they going to keep it there? It's simply not worth it.--Berig (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am noting that I have moved to support the article. I believe that the additional information fills in gaps that the original article lacked, and that there is a definite improvement from the first version that I saw. I can only expect the page to become even closer to perfect as Jakob's concerns are met. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm flattered that you are supporting the article now.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was nothing personal. I just thought that it could have some more information. I am from the school of an idealistic "complete" version of a page because I believe we can do far better than Britannica if we all pull our efforts and go after the highest standards. All the information, all the views, and everything without a bias; that is something hard to find, and would show that Wikipedia and its editors are superior than the others. I feel your article now meets that standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :).--Berig (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation of Consensus
When was WP:Consensus needed to remove uncited or badly cited material? Never has been. No matter what an article's watchlist demographics are like, such material when disputed should be removed. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, but it seemed odd to remove a section that had support on the talkpage.--Berig (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're currently supposed to be improving it, though the heated talk page might not reflect that. Your opinion is welcome. –Holt T•C 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deacon
Hi Berig!

How can I stop Deacon's edit war against me in the *talk* page of Germanic People? He's removing big parts of my comments. Hollinger (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Some more background: I had written this comment: "OK, Deacon has made his intentions, agenda and modus operandi clear enough in above comment and also here: User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war. I'm not interested in playing these sort of games, so I'm out of here."

And just to show me his modus operandi even better, he went in and deleted most of my comment. I consider his behaviour very rude and dishonourable. Hollinger (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ethnic matters are always controversial on WP and can cause highly infected debates, see e.g. Talk:English people. The best thing you can do is to find a nice quote in one of the sources you refer to. However, it should be from a more mainstream source than Wiik.--Berig (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll leave this aside for now, and might bring it up again at some other point. Hollinger (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Greece runestones map
I put forward a request to the Swede Lokal Profil regarding the Greece runestones map, feel free to leave a comment at User_talk:Lokal_Profil about how you want it to look. Holt (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is a much better map than mine! However, I wonder if it's worth it, as the nomination appears to be failing. That is one way of making a nomination fail: let it be listed for so long that anything that could possibly be opposed is opposed. Soon it will have been listed for 5 weeks!--Berig (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't see why the image shouldn't be improved at all, whether there's a nomination or not. Are you sure that you won't be able to put it up as a FAC again, sometime in the future? I'd hate to see you give up on it. Holt (T•C) 23:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I shouldn't give up on it considering that this is an FA that appeared today on the main page.--Berig (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Greece Runestones
Congratulations with the FA, Berig! :D It is definitely well deserved, you have gone through a lot! –Holt (T•C) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Grooves (archaeology)
--Dravecky (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Our assessment template
Hello, I recently realized that the template for WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons allows for different categories for each combination of importance and quality ratings. In this post on the talk page, Drilnoth explains how this is done. Do you believe it would be feasible to use something like this for WikiProject Norse history and culture? In order to change all the templates, we could use a bot...

-ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Their template looks good, and I wouldn't mind.--Berig (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll work on getting something together in my userspace. I'll post here when it's up. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Notice the red category at the bottom of the page. I've also made a note on the talk page of the project so we can determine consensus. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bracteate trouble
I believe you were a bit hasty with the bracteates. I didn't just move the article, I corrected it and got rid of the erroneous title to which you just moved it back. Please reinstate. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On Grooves(archeology)
Hi Berig, I have found a photographer in Sutton Coldfield who is willing to provide a picture of the Coleshill Street grooves,I have contacted him but I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear enough on the kind of picture needed, perhaps you would like to contact him and ask exactly for what is needed for the article, his website is: www.mikekemble.com/sutton/suttoncoldfield.html, somewhere in it you'll find his email address, I've got it but don't feel this is the place to give it out. This is an example of his work: crosses carved by cruisaders in a Midlands church http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/elbmek/ww015.jpg Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brutaldeluxe. I really appreciate that you have found this photographer. Unfortunately, we haven't got much use for such pics until we find a reference that connects the English grooves to the other ones.--Berig (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Greece Runestones
Congratz on being on the main page! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)--Berig (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Noticed just now! :) –Holt (T•C) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another congrats from this total stranger! I notice you have also provided a huge amount of photographs for this and other articles - it is contributions such as these which make Wikipedia so valuble. Antienne (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that it made it to the main page but that is great! Its always nice to have one's work displayed in order to get a lot of interest from people who might never know the page exists. Congrats! The hard work really pays off. :) I was going to leave a message about other things, but yeah, I can't remember what I was going to say now. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just found out about it too -- very nicely done! Congrats.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AmE/BrE
Do you prefer to use American English or British English in your articles? Just useful to know when copy editing. –Holt (T•C) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I try to use British English, although it's somewhat inconsistent as I often use the -ize spelling.--Berig (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kings of Dublin
I wonder if you could help me clear up an issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture. I have been having trouble with differing sources on the Sigtrygg Silkbeard and the Kings of Dublin. Thanks. --Grimhelm (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I know less than you on the subject, and I see that you have received competent help already.--Berig (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you at least for replying. :-) --Grimhelm (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Rolf krake by Frölich.jpg
File:Rolf krake by Frölich.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Rolf krake by Frolich.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Bild 942.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bild 942.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment Template
Hello again, I have left a note on the talk page of the project about my proposal for a new assessment template in order to determine consensus before moving my version of the template to the the transclused page. However, no one has replied, either positively or negatively. Since you know more about the project than me, I would like to ask you to let some of the more active members of WP:Norse know about the proposal. If no one objects within the next few weeks, I will be bold and simply make the change myself and create the appropriate categories. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand what the advantages would be.--Berig (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Being able to focus on article classes by category. For example, we currently have Top-importance stubs, though if someone were to begin expanding our stubs, they would be unlikely to find those stubs for a long time. On the other hand, with the new template, finding the articles that most urgently need work would be much easier. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that editors improve articles based on their category in WP:Norse. Usually, editors only improve articles because they care about the subject.--Berig (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but an editor looking to improve articles across the project may be interested. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know why I'm not enthusiastic about it. However, if it does not demand any voluntary work from the members of WP:Norse, but only a bot, I don't think anyone would mind if you went ahead.--Berig (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just jump in and say that I would deem such a solution Erik is suggesting as very useful. I would rather expand a stub that I know is important and people read often, than a stub that is visited once a week! –Holt (T•C) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Also, now that I think about it, this wouldn't even require a bot. I will go change the template soon. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[←] Sounds great. Leave me a note on my talk page if you could do with some assistance, I wouldn't mind working an hour or two on it. –Holt (T•C) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IfD templates
While the IfD discussion is ongoing, the templates must remain on the image, to direct editors to the IfD discussion. Removing the templates doesn't stop the discussion regardless. When the discussion is closed, if the images are kept, the tag will be removed; please do not remove the templates until the discussion is closed. Regards, Daniel (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the congrats. It all started when you asked me about it making me think long on it. :-) -- Menti  fisto  13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're an admin now. I hope you enjoy your new tools :).--Berig (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible RFC
Please, renounce your claim that I am a "vandal". I've asked many times now politely, but i'm not going to let that personal attack stand as it is. I won't ask again. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never called you a "vandal", as anyone can see in the diff. I only asked you whether your unreferenced change of 1000 to 1000BC was vandalism or not.--Berig (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe it was vandalism, and therefore think I am a vandal? It wasn't vandalism, but I just want to hear that from you so we can move on here. I want to get this resolved. Spinach Monster (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At first I wondered whether it was vandalism, but it appears from your reactions that it was original research instead.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. My reaction is from your intransigence, which is bad enough for any enough for any editor, but particularly for you since you're an administrator. Hold on a second. Let's try this again. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok...
You're an administrator. You should know how to do this. But, let's just jump to the chase.


 * Berig: I apologize for calling your edit vandalism, and thereby calling you a vandal. However, I cannot agree with your assessment that the Cimbri settled in northern Italy in 1000 BC.
 * Spinach Monster: Thank you for the apology. However, my edit only said that they were there sometime before 0 AD, which has been cited in multiple articles about the late Roman Republic. Since it isn't clear exactly what time period they migrated from the Jutland Peninsula to northern Italy, and someone had already put "1000" there, I figured it the 1000 wasn't very important as long as the BC was there.
 * Berig: Ok, then how about we remove the 1000 and just have "2nd Century BC". However, I have not found any references that cite the Cimbri actually spoke Cimbrian.
 * Spinach Monster: I'm happy to agree with your "2nd Century BC" edit, and I fully accept that right now we don't have any external references about the Cimbri speaking Cimbrian. However, considering that it's a very isolated language and the Cimbri were a small and isolated Germanic tribe, the connection is probably likely enough that the tribe itself should be mentioned in the Cimbrian language article.
 * Berig: I can agree with that as long as we don't say that the Cimbri spoke Cimbrian without reliable, external sources.
 * Spinach Monster: Sounds great.

See? Was that so hard? Why don't you get that? Spinach Monster (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured it the 1000 wasn't very important as long as the BC was there. sheesh. What is a millennium among ... friends.

it tuns out that the 1000 AD date was right all along. The Zimbren have nothing whatsoever to do with the Cimbri of 100 BC except for the name, which was applied to them in the 14th century. The main merit of SM's incredbibly dumb (disclaimer: but non-vandalistic!) edit was drawing attention to the fact that the perfectly correct statement of the date of immigration was unreferenced.

I have tried to add references based on de-wiki, but it is very difficult to find references online, and the dead tree references given I don't have access to, but I have no doubt that the article now renders the gist of scholarly opinion correctly, as the article on de-wiki has been subject to some review and debate.

Let me state again that the Cimbri play no role in this at all. The quotable fringe theory here is dating the immigration to the 6th rather than the 11th century. --dab (𒁳) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Norse
Hi, Berig. Nice pic of a runestone on your page :) Which Scandanavian language is your mother tongue?  I'm curious, and I noticed that your English has a decided Scandavian influence (I hope that doesn't sound rude, as if I'm saying, "I don't get you").  Cheers.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you my mother tongue, if you tell me how my English is influenced by Scandinavian :).--Berig (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, lol. It's the structure and the grammar, and the word selection (for example, "The name Berig is taken because" -- nothing trly specific, per se, however, for whatever reason I have a facility for picking out the influence of a "foreign" language on English. I was thinking Danish, but I'd not bet on that.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's difficult to avoid language interference. My native language is Swedish, so it was a close guess.--Berig (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult, yes. When I write in the languages I know, tidbits of English show through. Oh, this was a bit of a clue, too, "Still in the 16th century..." Nonetheless, your English is far better than my Swedish. I can read a bit of it, but have great difficulty in writing it (I suppose I just don't think in Swedish, and yet I can think in Spanish, Italian, German and others). Weird the way the language centre of the brain works. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's weird, and each language influences one's personality in different ways. I don't have the same manners when I speak English, Swedish and French for instance.--Berig (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've found that to be true, too. In fact sometimes I dream in Spanish, French, Italian, Latin or German, but the language seems to be appropriate to the theme of the dream. It's neat, but very weird. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested ...
... in the arguments given for and against the move proposal at Talk:Canute the Great. The discussion would probably benefit from your input. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Stone ship.JPG
I'm assuming from this discussion that you are the source of the image linked above. If that is indeed the case, could you please state this on the image's page? Thanks.--Rockfang (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on AGS template
Got any thoughts about importance rating of articles in the AGS WikiProject? See Template talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies if you wish to state your opinion. –Holt (T•C) 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't. In fact, I think importance rating is very difficult and subjective.--Berig (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then apparently you do have an opinion about it! You might have misunderstood me. The subject we are discussing there is whether or not to have importance rating at all in the AGS WikiProject. It's pretty much as black and white as that. If you didn't misunderstand, then please excuse me :) –Holt (T•C) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yakun
Since it was you who started the article about the varangian Yakun you might be interested in what I recently added to the article about the name Håkan. Yakun never became a popular slavic name but at least there are some high rank people in Novgorod that had the name. There is also a Russian family name Yakunin, but it's not for sure it comes from Yakun. Could also be from Yakov. Närking (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done :). That was interesting.--Berig (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Eric of Pomerania
I notice you have been a major contributor here, and you might want to have a look at Talk:Eric VII of Denmark. There will also be talk of some other page moves (other early Danish and Swedish kings). Cheers! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about IP(s)
Hi: Since you welcomed me and I see you are an admin, I thought I'd ask for advice here. I edit a lot of articles that I went to for info and saw defects in. I read about the elimination of printed books from the library at Cushing Academy, looked at the article, it wasn't very good, so I improved it. I noted that an IP had created a paragraph about the library matter that had been repeatedly deleted without edit summary by a user with Cushing in their name and no other edits, but that paragraph wasn't good so I researched and wrote a more balanced one with additional references. The IP had left a note on the talk page so I responded to it pointing out an inaccuracy--they say the process has been completed, but it hasn't. They or another IP are now reverting me daily. We've had some toing and froing on the talk page, but I can't seem to get them to see that it is not that I disagree about the factuality of printed books being eliminated from the library, I'm just trying to say it in a better, better documented manner. . . and it isn't completed yet. Yesterday, someone else got there and reverted their change before I saw it, but today they had made it again. What do I do now? Report them on some noticeboard? I'm reluctant to do so, we are both trying to get the same information covered. And they are only reverting once a day. (I'm also not sure whether this IP is the same person as the IP who created the paragraph; the latter has other edits, this one last time I checked, only does this.) I seem to have got myself into a slow-motion edit war, and it's so silly because we both see the same need in the article. What do you think? Should I gracefully bow out and let this person keep a slightly inaccurate, less well documented version of the information in the article because they feel so strongly about it, or do you think as an admin that it rises to the level of needing semi-protection? I'm thinking the latter might cause the person to register an account and then resume doing the same thing, which wouldn't be helpful, but I can't seem to get through to them. Or of course I could be wrong and my version also needs rewriting. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I have been so slow to respond, but I haven't been logged in for a long time, and the only reason I have logged in now is because I saw your message. I see that the edit war seems to have ceased as soon as you asked me to invervene as an admin, and that now three days later, your version is still present. Hopefully, there'll be no further problems.--Berig (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I hope they've figured out we're trying to say the same thing; I really don't want to be mean to them.Yngvadottir (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wielbark culture
Hi! I have just written that you are an author of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wielbark_culture_expansion.png map. Would you be so kind to add an information on the map (colours, dates, and names of archeological cultures), for example: Wielbark culture or Gothiscandza (red), the 1st-2nd c., Goths (blue), the 2nd-3rd c., and so on. - Warm regards, Mibelz (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you could not have asked me at a more inopportune moment. We are moving to new house and my reference material is at the moment stored in a large self-service storage. If you don't mind waiting a month or so, I'll see if I can provide the information requested (or I'll go to the library). Best,--Berig (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

--- Thegn runestones and round churches Dear friends. If you take a look at the wiki-map of thegn rune stones here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_thegn_runestones.jpg

and you go to this page:

http://goto.glocalnet.net/klosterstad/rundkyrkorisv.html

you'll notice, that the swedish round churches are in the same areas as the thegn rune stones. I have first noticed this, after having my own map drawn with roughly placing of the two different things. I would be a very good idea, if the author of the runestone map would put in the rather few round churches in his map, in another color than red, (blue or green). Best regards Jan Eskildsen 87.57.199.80 (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:FranksCasket2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:FranksCasket2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo GA review
Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. You have been a contributor to the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Haugsetting.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Haugsetting.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Haugsetting2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Haugsetting2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki help - linking to a specific cross in Manx Runestones
Hello. I was trying to make a wiki-link to a specific stone covered in Manx Runestones, but I'm not exactly sure how to do that? Any idea? It's the 'Hedin Cross', this one in the article -> "Br Olsen;205B (Maughold (IV), MM 142)".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Image of the Böksta Runestone
Dear Berig,

I work for a Professor at the University of Chicago who is interested in reprinting your photo of Ullr from the Böksta Runestone in an upcoming publication. Do you have a photo that is of a higher resolution?

Thank you and take care, Jay Munsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmunsch (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Jelling stone ship
You haven't been active here in a while, but just in case you look at your talk page from time to time. . . I just created this article and I have searched around on Commons but cannot find any suitable picture to put on it. Since you uploaded numerous runestone pictures and I have it in my mind from somewhere that you are an archaeologist, I thought you might know of one which we could use? Sorry to bother you if you don't or just don't have time these days. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gewis
A tag has been placed on Gewis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Hrolfr kraki sows the seeds of the fyris wolds.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hrolfr kraki sows the seeds of the fyris wolds.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  10:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wild Hunt
Hi: In May 2007 you created Odin's hunt, which you then merged into Wild Hunt as a section on specifically Swedish traditions. There's a statement there referenced to Ebbe Schön's Asa-Tors hammare: gudar och jättar i tro och tradition, pp. 201–05, that has been brought to my attention off-wiki as startling: that Odin sometimes rides in a wheeled vehicle in the Hunt. Unfortunately I can't get access to the book and GoogleBooks' snippet view won't give me access to the page where I get the only hit on Odens jakt, which I presume is the relevant location. Can I possibly ask you to quote the passage in question or find somewhere where I can see it? Or is there any other source for this information that I may be able to see? Many thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the quotation - I can't see any of that passage on GoogleBooks. I've made the citation in the article more specific and passed on the text off-list with a translation. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Vikingraad.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vikingraad.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please halt user
Please tell or stop User 23.143.236.49 Special:Contributions/24.143.236.49 (talk) and User:207.62.246.50 Special:Contributions/207.62.24650 (talk) (the same user) to stop vandalizing the Chinese zodiac signs, Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig. I keep fixing the problem, but the user believes this is a game, please at least try to warn the user or stop the user from taking chances on reviewing the user's contributions, please halt the person's actions. I appreciate your concern.--74.34.83.89 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Uffe den spake.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Uffe den spake.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk page deletion
Hi Berig. Sorry to be a pain, but I noticed that you deleted User talk:Wiglaf. This seems contrary to WP:DELTALK, which says that user talk pages should not be deleted. Would you mind either explaining why this is a special case, or undoing the deletion? Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have restored the page. User talk pages are almost never deleted, and no reason was given why it was appropriate on this case. In fact, I cannot find the supposed request from this user to delete their various pages, which I note was your only logged administrative action in the last two years. As you are currently on a break again you are probably unaware that this is a hot-button issue right now and the community is in the process of tightening the rules for inactive admins. The reason is that, as seems to be reflected by this very incident, they are often unaware of current policies and procedures. You are editing just barely often enough to avoid being desysopped for inactivity, I would suggest that when you return you either relinquish your admin status or commit not to use your admin tools anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiglaf is an old account of mine, and I removed it for privacy reasons.--Berig (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a legitimate privacy concern please contact the oversight team as detailed at WP:RFO. They can remove the sensitive material while leaving the rest of the page intact as required by our talk page policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Carta Marina
Your picture of the Carta Marina is licensed under a CC license. But it's from 1539! How can this be real??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.241.194 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Karlevi Runestone
Hi Berig: You originally created this page, like so many others. I have a friend working on a book who is trying to track down where the "Older translation" of the verse came from. Is it your translation from Sveriges Runinskrifter or what? Feel free to e-mail me the answer if you prefer. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Yngvadottir, both translations are taken from the Rundata project(http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm).--Berig (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)