User talk:Haukurth/Archive3

''This page is an archive. Please do not edit it.''

Norse mythology and your comments
Quote: Heiðrún - An extremely convenient goat. -Haukur

You really *are* an irreverent gent sometimes, and I love it. ::grin::

 P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again, and keep up the good work at Norse mythology-related articles. Jkelly 08:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Thankyou for the question mark welcoming. Your a pretty switched-on fellow for guessing that it was me.
 * If my vote counts for nothing (eg, Naming conventions (Norse mythology)), then why did I create an account in the first place? (don't answer, because I've already answered that on my talk page.) Marco79 15:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: If I get around to it I might create a new signature for myself.

Thanks for your support, and for your help
Hi, Haukur. Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. (I've changed my user name, to have greater anonymity, but I'm sure you can guess who I am!) It's very flattering when people who disagree with me on article content still trust me not to abuse the tools. Thanks also for your help on the Terri Schiavo page. I admit that I secretly groaned when you appeared there, because the squabbling had stopped for about two weeks, and I thought, "Oh no, it's going to start again!" But, as it turned out, your intervention and the questions you asked were very helpful in leading to a solution that everyone was able to accept. I think Kipling said (something like), "Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right." Cheers. AnnH (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sean Black RfA
Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Bla ck 07:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Blue
Hi, Matt. I want to get some edits in on Prussian Blue (American duo) as I note on that talk page. Could you check the case and see if you find that unprotecting the article would be justified? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected it. Leaving it protected for nearly a month simply because of vandalism is a bit of a mistake, IMO. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Scholten
Sæll!

Hefirðu séð bók Daniels Scholtens um íslenzka málfræði? Fyrir fáeinum árum rölti ég um Bóksölu stúdenta og fann þar sýningareintak. Bókin var einhver sú hryllilegasta um efnið, sem ég hefi séð. Villurnar voru hér um bil jafnmargar blaðsíðunum. Ég sendi drengnum tölvupóst um efnið, hann tók því rólega og sagði að í verki af þessari stærð hlytu að slæðast inn villur. Það er að vísu rétt, en ef hann hefir ekki tekið sig á í annarri útgáfu, sem ég hefi ekki séð, verður helzt að fjarlægja hann af heimildalistanum. Hvað segir þú? Kveðja Io 20:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Alvis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis

It looks like this needs a disambiguation page. I do not have the time for it right now, so figured I would mention it to someone who might. Slainté,  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  07:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversial page moves
Hello, Haukurth. First I want to compliment you on your work on Norse mythology articles. You add a lot, as everyone can see. I've always been fascinated by the topic, perhaps in part due to my Norwegian-American heritage, which I have always been proud of. It does distress me the controversy over naming related articles has been so sharp sometimes. I really want to distance myself from the personal attacks and questioning of motives some have made in this area. I have to say, though, I personally am feeling about as unhappy right now about Wikipedia as I have ever been, and it has to do with how a page was moved without discussion or even announcement on the talk page, but especially with how the move was forced after I put it back and politely requested discussion before the move continue.

I know you know the subject matter and have strong opinions. Please realize others may disagree with you, perhaps even strongly disagree, from the best of intentions. My intentions are to tell the story of these fascinating Norse myths in the most broadly accessible way possible to an English-speaking audience on the English language Wikipedia. I will fully grant that you disagree with me on some points from the very best of motives, but can we please agree to not make page moves that are likely to be controversial without announcement on that article's talk page, and can we please not force moves through when good-faith objections are made? Very truly yours, Jonathunder 02:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Íslenzk málfræði
Sæll!

Fyrst einhverjir hafa verið svo vænir að setja upp allgóða hljóðfræðilega lýsingu á íslenzku, finnst þér tímabært (eða m. ö. o. á annar hvor okkar eða annarra, sem kunna efnið) að nenna að taka næsta skref og setja upp snöggsoðna beygingafræði? Wikipedia á jú að vera um allt.

Kveðja Io 17:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Lexicon Poeticum
Sæll!

Mig minnir að það hafir verið þú sem hvattir mig að senda Eybirni kveðju og hrós. Ég gerði það. Hann svaraði að vísu ekki, en nú er ég búinn að lesa nokkrar greinar og rökræður um þær, þar sem menn (að mig minnir þú líka) hafa kvartað yfir því að verkið (þ. e. bækurnar) sé ekki aðgengilegt. Svo mikið er víst, að það er í fárra höndum, og Eybjörn á tvær þeirra. Gætirðu sent honum sára bæn frá áhugamönnum um íslenzka menningu á netinu, að það skipti máli, að hann ljúki þessu starfi og haldi síðan áfram með kenningarnar? Hann er að vísu kominn með gífurlegt safn á netið, en Lexicon Poeticum er ófullgert og kenningarnar hjá honum takmarkast enn sem komið er við orustur.

Kveðja Io 18:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nidhogg
Edith Hamilton uses the spelling Nidhogg in the index to Mythology, and it's the spelling I remember from my high school mythology class. That's why I thought it was fairly well established in English. --Angr (t·c) 21:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My two florins on the topic- I rarely come across that form (Nidhogg), and tend to encounter more often the form to which it was recently changed in the relevant mythology article. ::shrug:: Slainté,  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  21:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Ed Poor's behavior was acceptable. He's not involved in the vote; he moved it back to what it had been for a long time; and he protected it from moves after what could only be described as a "move war" (five moves in less than seven hours). --Angr (t·c) 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There was an edit war?!?! I must have missed it on my watchlist. Thanks for the tip, Angr.  P . Mac Uidhir   (t)  (c) 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Haukurth, I do have some questions about the Nidhogg. I am a bit concerned that apparently an english version does exist, considering the Google hits. My other question is, and please be honest with me about this, is the version you are suggesting Níðhöggr Old Norse, or Icelandic in reality? Because this is after all the English-language Wikipedia. So maybe you can fill me in on this a little, appreciate it... Gryffindor  13:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah ok I see thanks for the information. I am just concerned about attempts by users to push thru their native version if an English name exists at the same time. However this case is certainly not easy, but since you seem to be the expert on this I will trust your judgement on the originality and correctness of the name. However the comment left by Angr warrants comment too, so maybe there is an english version? Gryffindor  14:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to draw your attention to a statement which has been at the top of the requested moves page for a long time: moves should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first, particularly where a page move may be controversial. It looks like a move war and some attendant unpleasantness could have been avoided if that had been done. I got a message on my talk page that the page discussed here was moved without announcement, and looking at the history, it appears it was. No Account 18:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong language for a known sock-puppet. Tsk.
 * →  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  05:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hej, Haukur. Check this out.
User:Edinborgarstefan/Meira í vinnslu

Good stuff. Prose needs some refining, ideas need some simplifying... but he says it well even its present state.  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

anglicizations
Haukur, don't let yourself get too frustrated over this. I am glad that you speak up for what is essentially my position too, but remember that questions of article titles are, after all, not a big deal. We could easily have a good encyclopedia with all-ASCII titles, too. That said, if you like, I invite you to take a look at Nebuchadrezzar II, a rather complicated case of Akkadian transliteration, Hebrew variants and their anglicizations. dab (&#5839;) 09:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your request
Hi, thanks for your confidence, but since I voted on the Nidhogg question it would be inappropriate for me to be a closing admin. Do you know another admin who didn't vote? --Angr (t·c) 10:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Šumava / Bohemian Forest
Hi, I'd like to thank you for your oposion to the move of Sumava to Bohemian Forest. You were the only one who pointed out the more usual name in English is Sumava/Šumava. (Which is quite natural - how many English speakers are familiar with low mountain ranges in Central Europe...?). Unfortunately, everybody else, none of them with any contributions to Sumava article, was sure the correct English name is Bohemian Forest. It seems this knowledge was mainly based on the info in the article itself - ironically included (as a minor edit) by a Czech wikipedian! As I was on partial vacation when the request was discussed, I didn't noticed. --Wikimol 00:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Um stafsetningu og sértákn (Translation: About spelling and special characters)
Hi! (I realize now, that it is hardly proper to write in any other language than English)

In view of the following "facts" (AFAIK), what would you recommend?

1) Almost every computer user has access to the whole UNICODE character set.

2) Said set includes almost (I'm not quite sure how many languages are missing, but at least every latinized alphabet is there) any script in use, and countless others, now dead, are also represented.

3) There is still unused space in the UNICODE standard, which may remedy any shortcomings mentioned in point 2.

4) Even if Wikipedia is intended to reach those who most need information by this channel, which may not be available by other means, and therefore are likely to have the most archaic computers, the incredible growth of computing power will eventually catch up with them as well.

5) With increasing power, UNICODE itself will have the scope to expand.

6) In view of the incredible speed, with which almost everything in the computing world has happened, the day is close, when discarded computers from Western countries, donated to the developing world, will be more powerful than the one I am typing on right now.

Would you (not just Haukur, everyone reading this) cling on to the 26 letter English alphabet, or would you allow scholarly knowledge to come to the fore with the aid of redirections? Which would you have: A comfy old fashioned dictionary which you can leaf through until you by accident actually stumble upon what you were looking for, or would you have an encyclopedia, where your leafing will eventually take you to the right place (redirects will see to that), and there discover not only what you were looking for, but a great deal more, including a de-anglisised mythology, scholarly spelling and first and foremost cross-references you would never have dreamed about. Those cross-references are, as it is now, almost impossible, since no one has acknowledged any standards at all, regardless of all the blather of Use English.

Which do you prefer? Muddled information or accurate?

P.S.: Haukur, fyrirgefðu mér, en ég var ekki viss um, hvar ég ætti að setja þetta niður. Ef annar vettvangur er meira viðeigandi, láttu mig vita og ég pósta þangað - nema þér finnist ég of harðorður, og læt ég þá kyrrt liggja.

Cheerio Io 20:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again
Dear Mr. Þorgeirsson,

Thank you very much for appearing at just the right time there at Odin's page. I am glad you are not taking sides either. If you have the time, why don't you start rewriting the page? You could do it incrementally if you prefer. You have done very good work elsewhere.

On "Etymology", I agree that the stem comes from more than one Germanic root. Which Indo-European corresponds to which Germanic is harder to say. Thus, I agree with you that this information should be summarized only briefly following Adam of Bremen. I agree with GraemeLeggett that the whole section belongs at the end.

That said, I wish to compliment you on your excellent photographs on your main user page! I'll be back for another look.

Also your English is level 4 not 3. I imagine if I spoke to you in person, I might mistake you for a native. Your writing is certainly that of a native speaker and better than that of many native college students. I can only respect your modesty.

I also envy your linguistic achievement, which is far beyond what I will undertake.

Sincerely, Wighson 02:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -

User:CDThieme's sockpuppetry
According to User:David Gerard posting at WP:AN/I, User:CDThieme has been using an extensive collection of sockpuppets to stuff votes. These include the usernames No Account, Tree&Leaf, Longboat, Uncarved Block, Quintusdecimus and Via Egnatia, as well as the imposter account Jguk. (note the dot). There are quite likely more. I'm sure you noticed most of these voting on several renaming and policy polls lately ... and given that he seems to have given many of these accounts quite the edit history, one wonders who else is really CDThieme? Quite disturbing. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * cheers, I knew you would understand. Did he ruin any of your votings as well? I think with Nidhogg he tried didn't he? Gryffindor  19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is really unfortunate. Did he influence the voting of Balder in such a way that it got ruined? or were there not enough votes in any case..? Gryffindor  19:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with you, the users (if this all turns out to be true) seems to have voted twice. Gryffindor  20:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...
HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN !!:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me FOR GREAT JUSTICE in my recent RFA. Now that I am promoted to admin, I vow to TAKE OFF EVERY ZIG and help vandals ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION.

All the best. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nýr samhljóði
Sæll!

Ég bætti glottal stop við íslenzka samhljóðasafnið út frá eigin máltilfinningu. Þar eð þú virðist hafa einhverja menntun eða a. m. k. þekkingu á málvísindum, mættirðu gjarnan tjá þig um þetta, eða þess vegna eyða breytingunni, ef þú ert ósammála. Kveðja Io 21:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Personally I'd say you use it, at least, when you emphasize a word beginning with a vowel. I tried the sentence Esjan er ágæt a few times, and found that Esjan always came out with a glottal stop (if that is what it is), but ágæt did not. If you want, however, to emphasize how great Esjan is (i. e. emphasize ágæt), then ágæt begins with a stop as well.


 * I would be interested to know, whether preaspiration is really an [h] or a [&#660;]. All the best Io 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. As for my education, I'm a mere civil engineer, but I also happen to have an interest in these things, and I believe my ears are as good as any. :-) Cheers Io 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The letter h itself begins with a closure of the vocal chords i. e. [&#660;hau:]. Try it. Try saying hafa out loud and then whispering it. I suspect you'll find the first case comes out as [&#660;ha:va:], the second [ha:va:]. If tott sounds the same backwards and forwards, an explanation might be that the pronunciation is really [t&#660;ɔ&#660;ht] with the [h] being lost to the ear when played backwards. This is of course just speculation. What is needed is reliable spectral analysis, and I sadly don't have access to that. Cheers Io 22:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the stupid previous paragraph. I forgot about the aspiration. If tott is really [thɔht], then the word is, of course symmetrical. My only excuse is that I had a lot on my mind at the moment. Cheerio Io 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * PS Out of consideration or pure mercy, you might perhaps find it in your heart to delete that bloody nonsense I wrote from your page, so that I shall not be remembered as the man who dulled Occam's Razor and multiplied entities without necessity.
 * Sorry. Forgot to sign off. Cheers. Io 16:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggested RfA
Thanks for your comment and suggestion at WP:RM. I was aware that it was merely a lack of adminship that was stopping me, as it happens; I was just making my reasoning transparent. I'd been wondering if/when someone would suggest I become adminned (to coin a phrase), ever since finding my name at WP:NA, and I still don't know whether I would want it. Yes, it would be useful for moves like the current one (Clogwyn Du'r Arddu), but wouldn't there be more expected of me than that? Would my conduct over contentious issues like, hm..., let me think,... foreign accents in article titles, for example, be criticised? I'm not sure I can justify my qualifications to a scrutinous community, just because I fancy moving a few pages more easily. (Oh, and some vandalism stuff; it would have been good to have been able to block that Diacrit and his/its associates.) I'm prepared to have my arm twisted, but until then, I'm undecided. But thanks all the same. --Stemonitis 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Image galleries
You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RfA
Thanks, Haukur, for supporting my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help the reality of Wikipedia live up to the dream! BD2412 T 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Icelandic language poets
I thought this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Icelandic_language_poets) was missing so I compiled a list from the beginnings until about 1930. Would you care to contribute, or perhaps, more importantly, do you think there's enough enthusiasm out there to sustain a list of this size (and, I hope, eventually larger)? Cheerio Io 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Everything I have in mind is a rather large project by itself, so you may pick a project to your liking. My personal preference would be an Icelandic morphology (written in bits and pieces) on a separate page. As you study linguistics, you are aware of the enormity of the task.


 * As for the poets, I was just trying to provide a frame for others to fill in. I'm not an expert on literature, although I do, of course have my favourite poets (Egill, Einar Ben. and Stephan G. to name the top three). I'm game these days. But be aware that I'm not a leader, just a filler-in-the-gaps. Cheerio Io 21:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Morphology
I think it's a good idea but I don't really have any Icelandic grammar books out here in London. I might pick up some of them when I go home for Christmas so maybe sometime in the new year.

I'm currently working on articles related to the Norse exploration of North-America. I'm very confused by the different nomenclature that seems to be in use for the texts in question. It seems that Grænlendinga saga (which I'm preparing an article on) is sometimes called "Eiríks saga" and that Eiríks saga rauða is sometimes split into "Eiríks saga" and "Þorfinns saga karlefnis". Then there is a Grænlendinga þáttr which is quite distinct from either and yet Grænlendinga saga is itself so short that it is sometimes referred to as a "þáttr" or even as "Grænlendinga þáttr". It's all very confusing. I'm working mostly from web sources and I wish I had the manuscript texts of Flateyjarbók and Hauksbók at hand. - Haukur 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Pick up what you can and, if I may recommend them, the grammars by Bruno Kress and Valtýr Guðmundsson are an absolute must. Literature is not my forte, but I'd go with Fornritafélagsútgáfan in any case. Manuscripts are online someplace (the site is called Sagnanetið as I recall) and with any luck you might find what you need there. But you probably already know that. In the meantime I wrote an article containing what little is known about Eysteinn Ásgrímsson, so you can strike him from your list. (The article sucks, but I didn't have much to work with.) Cheerio Io 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For Hauksbók- Eysteinn has some of it available online at his main website. Are you looking for manuscript images/pictures, or transcriptions of the manuscripts for both of those works?
 * →  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  05:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiprojects
Would you enlighten me about Wikiprojects as opposed to just writing articles? I know I could look it up, but I'm getting tired now, and the short version would do nicely. Cheerio Io 21:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Preaspiration in Icelandic
A cousin of mine, who studied in Leeds told me that the hardest thing for an Icelander to do, in order to make his accent vanish, was precisely dropping the preaspiration. Try as he might, he could suppress everything but that. Does this correspond to your experience?

On another note: I recently attended a seminar conducted by an Englishman. He was probably not a Londoner. I didn't ask him where he came from, but he pronounced the letter h as haitch. But he had studied in Cardiff and told me I had a Welsh accent! So the question is (I didn't have time to ask him), what characterizes a Welsh accent? Just out of curiosity. Cheers Io 18:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Propriety
The English Wikipedia frowns upon discussions in native languages. They want everyone to be able to follow the discussions, and I understand that point of view. But if you are discussing a topic that is clearly only accessible to "specialists" in the first place, it should OK to give citations and references in the original and drop names without explanation, shouldn't it? Cheers Io 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, surely. If someone joins in on the conversation and asks for translations we will supply them. - Haukur 20:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Common names" NC
Hi Haukurth, I've been asking this nicely, but I'd appreciate you'd stop messing with the Naming conventions (common names) guideline without prior talk. Yes, I think we ought to be thinking about some more examples about the "scientifically correct" vs. "common name". Removing the intro sentence of that section is not near to the best solution, IMHO. There's a talk page to raise the issue. You only seem bent on introducing changes to that guideline, whatever the type of changes.

If you want to know more about "scientific name" vs. "common name", there's also some things said about that in the naming conflict guideline, that effectively comes down to a scientific name in some cases getting precedence - but as far as I know, info about dogs can be found in the dog article and not in the Canis lupus familiaris article, which is effectively a redirect. --Francis Schonken 13:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not "messing with" the guideline. I'm trying to update it and make it clearer. At the top of the page it says "Feel free to update this page as needed". I won't, of course, make any major changes without discussion. - Haukur 14:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Icelandic characters
I posted a message for Arndisdunja on her talk page regarding her article The Yule Lads. If you like, you could mention it to her, as I see she logs in infrequently.

Also, in the article Rumpelstiltskin is a list of this character's name in several languages. If the tale exists in Icelandic, you could add his name on that page.

I am interested in Icelandic things because I spent two years in Iceland, '95–'97 and enjoyed it very much. &bull;DanMS 17:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource
If you are publishing Pontus rímur on your own web page, shouldn't Wikisource benefit as well? There's no page for Icelandic sources, as far as I can see, and I can think of a lot of things that deserve to be made public that way, with or without translation. I mentioned Stephan G. earlier, and he died in 1927 and so belongs to the public domain. The list could be expanded indefinitely. Do you know how to set up a source page? Cheers Io 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA thank you
Extending my gratitude to one of the many complete strangers that supported my bid for adminship, which passed 64-2. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  06:52, Dec. 17, 2005

Brynhildr
Also, I have fixed the copy-paste move you requested. The history for both pages is merged to Brynhildr. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  15:32, Dec. 17, 2005

Haukurth, again, stop messing in guidelines...
...you barely understand - use the talk page instead.

It is by now clear you want to push your POV that the "common names" principle should be bent another way. I don't agree to it. Period. So if you're looking for agreement rather than edit-warring, use the talk page. --Francis Schonken 13:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop referring to my updating the guidelines as "messing" with them. Please stop saying that I don't understand a simple piece of English prose. I have asked you both those things before.


 * I removed a misleadingly captioned duplicate link and you apparently agree with me since you have not reverted that change. I have made no substantive change to the guideline and I will not do so without prior discussion on the talk page. But minor clarifications and rewordings do not need prior discussion - if you disagree with my changes you can make changes on your own as you have not hesitated to do. - Haukur 13:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Messing" it is. The poll was not "April 2004", it continued till May. "(2004)" is correct, "(April 2004)" isn't. "(April/May 2004)" is IMHO unnecessary detail. --Francis Schonken 13:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost all of the discussion was in April and that's precise enough. The detail is helpful since a year is a long time on Wikipedia and early 2004 is quite different from late 2004. On the other hand this link isn't helpful at all and should just be removed. It was recently added too and, which is perfectly fine, without any prior discussion. - Haukur 13:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "should just be removed"??? - like I said, you're just pushing POV.
 * And why should "early 2004" (in fact: "mid 2004") be quite different from "late 2004": POV pushing, like always, POV-pushing.
 * Things happen very fast on Wikipedia. A year is a long time and a poll that happened in April 2004 is, frankly, a bit obsolete. But the most serious problem about that poll is that it was badly organized and the options people were voting on were eminently unclear as several of the people commenting noted. - Haukur 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Recently added? I could check, as far as I know it's been there for ages. --Francis Schonken 13:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, please check and tell me the result. - Haukur 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The "use judiciously" is POV, and double with might in some cases assist, the "use judiciuosly" is explained in that guideline. I don't agree with trying to minimise the practical help one can sometimes get from the Google test guideline. It helped, for instance, to discern between Mobutu Sese Seko and Mobutu Sésé Seko. --Francis Schonken 13:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're using "is POV" and "POV pushing" very gratuitously as a tar brush. Is it "POV" in some negative sense that Google tests should be used judiciously? Especially when it is explained in the guideline itself? And what does it even mean to talk about "POV" in the context of a Wikipedia guideline? Is the guideline itself NPOV? I just don't think those terms are very useful here.


 * No-one is saying Google tests can't be used but it's worth reminding people that they must be used with caution. - Haukur 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Höðr - spake
You beat me to it. :) →  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

diacritics
I did not reply to your two previous posts to my page, not because I was not flattered with you comments, but because I had nothing constructive to add to them :-)

diacritics->anglicized. Not as many as one would think because articles are usually written by a native English speaker and then retrofitted afterwards, while articles written by Poles (name your nationality) about obscure Polish towns and people, tend to keep their obscure Polish spellings. A classic example of the former is Goering. But despite what I have just written there are some which have flipped the other way (Often to do with composers and that sort of person where the native writer has not realised that the person is famous enough to have an anglicized name). I'm about to do something else, for a few hours but I'll think about it and get back to you shortly with some examples. There are at least a couple of those Norse gods which have gone the other way. Rivers are another favourt because the flow through more than one country and the locals sometimes agree to differ by using an anglicized name as are disputed islands and straits between Japan and Korea. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not fogotten this it is just I have run out of time before Chritmas. One where a request to move faild was Talk:Montreal/archive1 --Philip Baird Shearer 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Magnús prúði
Þar sem þú ert með sömu heimild og ég (eða fleiri), nennirðu að taka Magnús að þér? Ég hefi verið veikur undanfarið og ekki gert neitt af viti í þessum heimi eða öðrum. Beztu kveðjur Io 15:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Heilsa og gott skap eru komin á sinn stað, eins og þú hefir séð. Þú ert eflaust búinn að geta þér til um, hvað ég les á næstunni. En ég ætla samt að halda þeirri uppástungu til streitu, að þú takir að þér Magnús prúða. Þú ert miklu betur að þér um efnið. Þetta skal ekki taka sem svo, að ég sé orðinn reikull í rásinni, ég mun síðan velja mér skáld. Vandamál mitt er, að ég á ekki auðveldan aðgang að miklu ævisöguefni um fyrri skáldin (ég gæti herjað út Íslenzkar æviskrár til láns, og um sum eldri skáldanna er þar allt að finna, sem um þau er vitað og jafnvel meira, þar sem Páll Eggert gat í eyðurnar), en að öðru leyti eru eigin heimildir reytingslegar. Hinar öfgarnar eru, að ýtarlegar ævisögur sumra skálda hafa flætt yfir okkur undanfarin á, þannig að til að semja eða endurbæta sæmilegar greinar um Einar Ben. þarf að lesa þrjú bindi, um Stephan G. tvö og Hannes Hafstein eitt, öll digur. Fleiri mætti telja. En þessu framtaki verður sinnt, það er framkvæmanlegt.


 * Hitt er síðan annað mál, að með útkomu Íslenskrar tungu eru orðin tök á að gera hlutum eins og íslenzkri setningafræði skil. Þrátt fyrir geysimikið dæmasafn Jakobs Smára og mjög glögga úttekt Brunos Kress var alltaf eins og eitthvað vantaði. Sem stendur er greinin um setningafræði á þá leið, að íslenzka sé í meginatriðum SVO, en annars sé orðaröð býsna frjáls. Það er hálfaumt. En það bíður síns tíma. Beztu kveðjur Io 20:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Norse Mythology
Now *this* is a very good, clean, and comprehensive edit. Beautiful. I especially like the changes of elements already in the article. ;) Slainté,  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Edward Kennedy
Don't worry about Carter and Clinton - everyone knows that the Democrat to move is Ted Kennedy :) - Haukur 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't get me started! PLEASE!   &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A Google search for (Edward Kennedy OR Edward M. Kennedy) yields more hits than one for Ted Kennedy - and a search on books.google.com is even more decisive. So I'd have thought the common names principle suggests it should be at Edward M. Kennedy. But I've never edited that page and I'm reluctant to invade the article :) - Haukur 01:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to chime in with your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28common_names%29...I was actually trying to leave the debate and this individual finds a way to be insulting.  &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 01:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Haukurth, again stop your POV-pushing...
...at the Naming conventions (common names)

Note that this is a formal warning (template:mcn2):

Advice: Most Common Name

Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which defines the styles and contents used in articles, lays down a simple rule for deciding what name an article should be under. It is called most common name. In other words what is the form of name used principally by English speakers to refer to a topic, country, or person?

The reason for this is simple: we need to use names that most users will recognise instantly, and will be able to find easily. Once the most common name is accurate, then it is the form we are required to use.

Note: It does not mean that the English language name is used, merely the name most used by English speakers. If a foreign name is used and recognised by English speakers, then that is used.

The main exception to using MCN is in the area of royal names. That is because royalty often have a complex hybrid of names and titles which change over time so following the MCN rule is in practice impossible. But elsewhere the golden rule is simple: use the most common name used by English speakers on English Wikipedia.

--Francis Schonken 11:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't have to paste naming guidelines onto my talk page, Francis :) I've read them and I mostly agree with them. There are a few disputed areas - like diacritics - and we should mention them in the guidelines without prescribing anything. That way people reading the guidelines get a feel for the lay of the land. - Haukur 11:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You say you are giving me a formal warning but you don't say what you are warning me of. Could you elaborate? - Haukur 11:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You misinterpret the template above, it is one of the "official" templates for warning users that don't seem to get some core issue of wikipedia. It's the only template that presently exists re. the "most common name"; be happy, the warning is only of "could be seen as vandalism" level.


 * I'm going to revert your changes to Naming conventions (common names). We don't agree on them, so we discuss them, hopefully together with others, on the talk page prior to changing the guideline. Guideline changes are not discussed via commentary lines in the guideline, but on the talk page. If we agree, and the thing still remains tackish, a commentary line could maybe inserted on some places, but only for your style of editors, that think any change to a guideline is OK, and that "someone else" has to prove something if they want to remove it. I don't agree, so I remove. If you want me to agree: use the talk page. I've never denied discussion in order to try to find agreement. But if, in the end, we don't agree then there's no "consensus", and it does not go into the guideline. Your distructive behaviour directly in the guideline text is not appreciated, if you continue, of course a still more formal warning than the previous will follow. --Francis Schonken 12:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have already reverted my changes. As for removing things one doesn't agree with from the guideline you keep reinserting examples and links which I don't agree with and which no-one else has come to the support of. Fortunately those are minor issues.


 * Your idea that I am doing "destructive" things that amount to vandalism and deserve a block does not seem to me to be based in reality. - Haukur 12:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Haukurth,
There's no "permission" to insert whatever you like, when on a talk page there's 50%/50% disagreement over whether it's a good idea.

You're making a fraud of the "common names" principle (see template above) - again, that template is one of the "official" warning templates, next step, if you continue to push POV directly in a guideline, without prior discussion, would be to take you out of the wikipedia system for a short or longer time.

I had announced my major rewrite of the guideline several months ago. The changes were met favourably by the ensuing editors, who applied minor and some major changes to the guideline. Never have I had problems coming to a quick agreement with other wikipedians over the guideline, until you showed up. I had invited you to look at it w.r.t. some incoherences with Naming conventions (Norse mythology). For me it's still clear that if the Norse mythology guideline is incompatible with the "common names" principle, it's better to adapt the "Norse mythology" guideline at this stage, not the other way around. It's clear you want to do it the other way around. In that case I'd rather have the "tension" between the two guidelines remains (in other words: call it a straightout exception). But not start new philosophies about general-principles-of-exceptions that are not corroborated by existing guidelines.

Also your dramatic writing style is not appropriate for a guideline IMHO. --Francis Schonken 12:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are making a mountain out of a molehill, Francis. I haven't made any significant changes to the guideline, as anyone can see. I've just added a couple of clarifications and pointers to other guidelines - none of which is the mythology guideline.


 * I will not comment on your "taking me out of the Wikipedia system" idea. - Haukur 12:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Defending successive minor changes that end up to be a major change when taken together, is one of the techniques described at WP:POINT. WP:POINT is enough to get users blocked (although, true, not all admins are likely to use their power to apply it, so that's the margin in which you're working presently)
 * Since you're now defending openly that your 20-30 minor changes are only a masquerade for a major one, here's the more formal warning (template:Test3-n):

This message is regarding the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * Last word, again: use the talk page of that guideline, I've put a copy of your version of the "Exceptions" section on that talk page. You're free to work on it, to make it the version you'd like it to be ultimately. I'll comment (give me 24 h after a change of your talk page version: you'll see that usually my comments will be sooner, but don't chase me, I've still a private life you know) - anyhow for such an old guideline, there's no time pressure to have it changed. "Consensus" is more important than "speed" --Francis Schonken 12:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted my additions to the page in question more than half an hour before you put this test-3 thing here. And I am using the talk page of that guideline and I have put a version of my proposed additions there and I am not doing anything disruptive. Please stop this campaign of accusations which is now all over my talk page. - Haukur 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputes
I'm out of the fight for a few days, but could you explain to me what this new flare of spelling conventionts is about? I'll put my weight behind you (such as it is, since I don't have enough contributions to be taken seriously), but what the heck is going on? Cheers Io 18:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Reply to your question on my talk page

Reply to your question on my talk page
Glad to hear from you. I can hardly form a personal allegiance to someone I've never met. But your contributions are usually (at least IMNSHO) sensible. In any case I added whatever I had to say about the matter just now - after experiencing an editing conflict. The previous edit was apparently an agreement to put the matter into mediation, but I added my tuppence anyway. My allegiance is to the "cause" (no, not the cause where the rule applies "once in, never out" :))? Cheerio Io

Scandinavia template
Good morn, Haukur! I am not sure who designed the 'Scandinavia' template now found at Scandinavia, but figure you might have something to do with it. If so, or you know someone who can edit it (I cannot seem to figure out how to do it), it might be a good idea to add Nordic Bronze Age to the series for that template. Just a suggestion. Cheers, friend. →  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

MedCom/MedCab
The funny thing with MedCom/RfC is that the User conduct RfC somewhere expects previous Mediation, as at least two users need to have tried to solve the same dispute with the user about whom the RfC is (see Requests for comment/Example user).

So, indeed there's something circular in it, suggesting: "don't do either of them".

Another kind of mediation can be found at third opinion and/or AMA Requests for Assistance. I tried that last one once (long time ago) - still waiting for a response.

So, what do we do?

Maybe something that might help us is to see that the problem between the two of us has two aspects:
 * 1) We get irritated by each others way of conduct;
 * 2) We disagree about the content of some guidelines.

Sorry for putting it so bluntly. I formulated those two aspects of the problem maybe sharper than they are, but that was only intended to make clear the distinction.

The first of these problems can in normal circumstances be controlled if not getting beyond the Resolving disputes stage. I think we can get back to that stage if both of us want it.

The second aspect is difficult, since we both are not native English speakers, and the "guideline content disagreements" we have are on a set of guidelines that are particularly tied to the use of English language. This means we shouldn't trust our own judgements on these language-related issues, and try to learn from other wikipedians.

Maybe something I would like to ask you is something I already suggested before, that is that you would read the naming conventions (people) guideline. The "Norse mythology" NC guideline was your success. The "people" NC guideline was mine. Most of it is my work (apart from the parts I extracted from the "common names" guideline - that's part of why I had so many "intrusive" changes in the "common names" NC in September: since there hadn't been a general NC on people before, it seemed that wikipedians usually dropped people-related topics in the "common names" NC). Note that I had the "people" NC guideline checked several times by native English speakers. So, what I'd like to ask you is that you let me know what you think about that guideline: to see whether you get an idea of how I operate. If we understand better from each other how we operate, that might be part of solving our little tiffs.

--Francis Schonken 09:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What coincidence, you were just doing it when I was writing the suggestion. Nonetheless, I had rather in mind to hear your comment on what you think about the content of the people NC. I could tell more about the procedure of how it became guideline. But as that would involve saying not-so-nice things about someone who is no longer involved in wikipedia, maybe better leave that at peace, and concentrate on content. --Francis Schonken 10:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re. your proposal on my talk page:"Okay, that was blunt but sensible. Maybe we can strike some sort of deal here. How about you read my suggested additions to the Exceptions part of the CN guideline again with a more positive mindset and I read your people naming convention with a positive mindset? If you'd be willing to accept my inserting that couple of notes on diacritics and British vs. American English then I don't see that I need to make more changes to that NC for the time being (I would like to get in a comparison of burping/eructation vs. farting/flatulence but it's not important and it can wait). And I won't insist on keeping the dog or the fixed-wing aircraft in there if you don't like them. And I won't insist on removing the link to that 2004 poll."I didn't want to give a rash answer to that, here are my thoughts: --Francis Schonken 10:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd not "compromise" on wikipedia's quality. So the "content" discussion on proposals is IMHO what will get us through this.
 * 2) I spent some time yesterday reading Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. The only thing that page illustrates IMHO is that in some discussions wikipedians have great difficulty to stay "on topic". So I don't think it a great idea to use the aluminium/aluminum example in the guideline page, as it seems to imply: "if you can't determine what the common name is, solve the issue by an elaborate off-topic rant". No thanks, there are enough off-topic rants in wikipedia already. Also this would be rather a counter-example for naming conflict than for the "common names" guideline, but then counter-example in the sense of worst case scenario for solving a naming conflict.
 * 3) I'm not so very attached to the Kabila example, I just chose it randomly as it had been discussed and solved without much turmoil at village pump (policy) - but since that discussion is hard to recover (and not at the talk page of the article) it would probably be better not to use the Kabila example.
 * 4) Might I suggest another example (example for: "if common name can't be determined, use common sense"): Victor D'Hondt - in several scientific publications the last name of this guy is spelled "d'Hondt". Google test not possible (technically that is, while d=D in google). There's a "clean" WP:RM vote (that is: without turmoil of any kind) at talk:Victor D'Hondt.
 * 5) I oppose to "An armistice is in effect which states that both spellings are acceptable for article titles." first the use of the term "armistice" is a bit over the hill IMHO, but the fundamental problem is that it is an incorrect rephrasing of WP:MoS: I called it an extrapolation of existing guidelines. I still think the same: it's not a good idea to try expand other guidelines, via the common names guideline.
 * 6) So the whole of the paragraph "In the past, conflicts have often arisen between those who prefer British spellings and those who prefer American spellings. An armistice is in effect which states that both spellings are acceptable for article titles. This is irrespective of which spellings are more common. For example, a request to move aluminium to aluminum on the grounds that the second yields more Google hits will not succeed." is unacceptable to me for the "common names" guideline, for the explained reasons.
 * 7) Re. "I think it's useful to mention that the most common principle does not apply to British vs. American spellings.": of course, the same for me, but you can only do that by pointing to the guideline that is in effect, not by musing about what you would have liked it to be. My version contains a link to Manual_of_Style. I've been following that section of that guideline from early on when I got involved in wikipedia (without taking part in the discussions myself): I can assure you that is a delicate equilibrium of how it was phrased after long and passionate discussions. That is the wikipedia consensus on the British/American/other varieties of English. Do not try to find a new equilibrium of how that should be stated in the common names guideline. If you think it should be stated otherwise, do so in the MoS (besides, the big advantage for you there is that you won't be bothered by me, I do not intend to get involved in the MoS guideline).
 * 8) I never opposed the "fixed wing aircraft" as an example. I do oppose you calling it a "trivial case" (in your first version, now on the article page, you had it preceded by "There are also more trivial cases where Wikipedians have decided that other considerations than common usage are more important."). I think it a very good example for illustrating the Manual_of_Style though. The talk page section started by Donama ("American usage vs the world recommendation") shows it would be welcome to use it including the link to the MoS section about the National varieties of English, the way I proposed. I also like Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft while it is short an illustrative.
 * 9) I wouldn't put "When the native name of an entity contains characters with diacritics some Wikipedians prefer to use those diacritics in the relevant article title, even in cases where they are more often omitted in English texts. Others prefer to apply the most common principle throughout. For more details on this dispute see Naming conventions (use English)." - I have two reasons why I wouldn't do it (1) the "dispute" might get solved in a few weeks or months, and then the paragraph is incorrect (and might get forgotten, and then used to resuscitate the dispute, etc); (2) It adds unnecessary volume to this guideline, essentially saying "on this topic we have nothing to report" - in that case, IMHO, leave it out. I'd rather elaborate a separate paragraph with a link to Naming conflict which weighs the "common names" principle against self-identification etc, than linger on the diacritics in the "common names" guideline, about which, as said, there's nothing to report presently. I think that answers your "I also think it's useful to briefly mention the diacritics debate and link to more on that in the "use English" guideline.".
 * 10) About "King William" example. I don't know. Not big issue to me. However I would keep links to Naming conventions (names and titles) and Naming conventions (people) in the same paragraph - these are the two central guidelines on people. "Names and titles" about monarchs & nobility; "people" about most other persons (note that there are still several other "people"-related guidelines, all of them containing "exceptions" to the "common names" principle - one can't link to them all). If I had to choose, the paragraph mentioning the two principal NC guidelines on persons would read"For articles on people some minor practical exceptions are contained in Naming conventions (people) - these are however hardly sufficient to cover the complexities for naming royals and other nobility: hence Naming conventions (names and titles), and several other nobility-related Naming Conventions guidelines, contain many detailed exceptions."But I can live with the second half of this paragraph using the formulation introduced in the common names guideline several years ago (that is: before many, many other NC guidelines started to use exceptions), and re-introduced by Philip a few days ago (but then I'd prefer it in the "exceptions" section and not in the lead section of the guideline).

Hild
Thank you. - Haukur 21:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Anything else I can help you with?
 * I know I had caused stress to many of you Norse mythology people, although that wasn't my intention. I still want to make up for it.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 21:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Málfræði
Sæll félagi!

Ef til vill hefði ég átt að senda þér tölvupóst fremur en lengja talsíðu þína enn meir, en freistingin að stríða Schonken vini vorum náði undirtökunum - ekki að hann hafi áhuga á umræðunni.

En - ég hafði mig í gegnum lýsingu Kristjáns Árnasonar á almennri hljóðfræði. Sá kafli kemur á undan lýsingu íslenzku sem slíkrar og er þarfur til að gera grein fyrir skoðunum þeim, er nú eru uppi. En - ég get svarið það - það kostaði mig 30 IQ stig að hafa kaflann af. Hvaða dauðansbull er málkunnáttufræði? Það er mjög sennilega gott að hafa kerfi til að taka á nýfundnum málum, sem ekki eiga sér ritaða sögu, en hverju eru menn að velta fyrir sér, þegar þeir semja lærðar ritgerðir um, hvort u-hljóðvarp hafi verið virkt í málinu, þegar sérhljóðanum u var skotið inn á undan beygingarendigunni -r? Og hvað eru menn að velta fyrir sér, hvort u-hljóðvarp sé enn virkt? Íslenzka á sér svo langa ritaða sögu, að það má fullyrða, að u-hljóðvarpið gilti ekki lengur, þegar innskotið átti sér stað, og virkt u-hljóðvarp nú á dögum er virkt, en aðeins per analógíu. Til hvers er verið að finna upp reglukerfi fyrir íslenzku, þar sem velflest er skýranlegt nú þegar með tilvísun í sögu?

Og sem aukaspurning kemur hér: Af hverju eru Belgar alltaf til mestra vandræða? En sú spurning heyrir ekki efninu til.

Beztu kveðjur Io 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numerals (HAN)
Hi Haukurth! Thanks for your message. I had indeed discussed that point (see []), but I don't think most people read my comments at all, since they were below the votes. The reason they were below the votes was that only those who propose the change get to write the lead text, while they have to get more than 60% support vote. In this case, the proponents of HAN did not get to write the lead text, and in spite of getting over 60% votes (29 vs 17) compared to the requirement of 40%, the article was moved to Arabic numerals, which is ridiculous. Anyway, I think this issue of "name appropriate and preferable for academic usage" vs "colloquial name" must be clearly resolved in the naming conventions, and I believe that the former is preferable over the latter in many cases, but not always. e.g. when the academically preferable name is difficult to recognise or completely obscure. (e.g., it would be absurd to name "Tiger" as "Panthera tigris".) deeptrivia (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

''This page is an archive. Please do not edit it.''