User talk:Haukurth/Archive12

How exactly are the SDA and the LGM going to agree on any of the basic issues for the coalition...? The SDA wants an EU membership referendum together with the election, the LGM doesn't even want to talk about applying for membership; the SDA is willing to accept the IMF's conditions, the LGM wants to renegotiate; and so on and so forth...

Also, what do you expect will be the outcome of elections? With the LGM and the Progressives gaining the most votes and both SDA and Independence losing strongly...? —Nightstallion 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The EU policies of the SDA and the LGM are, as you point out, very far apart. At the high-point of EU-support in the country a couple of months ago, some of the LGM MPs were saying they could be willing to accept a referendum on whether to apply for EU membership. There have been no recent statements in that direction, however, and the two most recent polls show a big drop in popular support for EU-membership. I still wouldn't completely rule out an EU referendum alongside the forthcoming election but it seems less likely than before. We'll probably know very soon. The SDA is, in turn, unlikely to accept any substantial rocking of the boat vis-a-vis the IMA agreement.

The election results will almost certainly be a substantial loss for the Independence Party and likely a substantial gain for the LGM. The SDA is playing a very interesting gambit with putting Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir at the helm, she's the only person in the SDA leadership who still enjoys widespread popular support. This may help them reduce their losses at the polls but that is still far from certain. Obviously a lot will depend on how successful the coming temporary government will be. Also, it would seem that there will be 2-3 new parties on offer and if one or more of them gains momentum and seems likely to make it into parliament the results become harder to predict.

The new Progressive Party leader is, in my opinion, showing himself to be a competent and charismatic politician. I'd give him a reasonable chance of success in bringing the party out of its death spiral. Haukur (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that leaves only the Liberal Party (which is below the threshold in recent polls, AFAIK?) and the "Living Land" moderate environmentalists -- but they don't seem to have made much headway since the last election, do they? What kind of new parties do you expect to turn up (in terms of left/right and pro-EU/anti-EU)? —Nightstallion 15:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Liberal Party doesn't seem to be getting much traction at the moment. Their party leader is a moderate on most issues and has an understated style so I feel he tends to get drowned out a bit in the current frenzy. Their main issue - the fishery policies - haven't been much discussed lately. I wouldn't completely count them out, though, it's always been close for them whether they make it into parliament and so far they always have.

It's unclear if Living Land will stand again, they've not been prominent lately. Neyðarstjórn kvenna [Women's emergency government], a women's list, has announced that they will stand. Not much on concrete policies there yet. Framfaraflokkurinn [The Progress Party] has announced that they will stand but it doesn't look promising. They haven't even got a web page yet and I have no idea about any policies. Lýðveldisbyltingin [The Democratic Revolution] is yet another very vague group. Then there's Norræni íhaldsflokkurinn [The Nordic Conservative Party] who at least have a web page and an agenda. Their agenda even has some very specific items (unilateral introduction of the euro, EU-application, mandatory classes on Christianity for all schoolchildren irrespective of religion, founding of an Icelandic military). It's too early to tell if any of those groups (or others) will succeed or what impact they will have. Haukur (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, doesn't look very promising... What would you prefer to be the result of the election and the subsequent negotiations? And I hope you'll be updating Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009? ;) I try to do whatever I can in expanding election articles, but you've simply got much more information about the events than I do... —Nightstallion 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job, especially considering how you have to rely on a limited amount of sources. You're maybe a bit too focused on the EU but that's what makes Wikipedia works - people write about what they're interested in :) For my part, I'm still holding out hope that we may get some constitutional reforms. Haukur (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So, now that the new government has been finalised, what's the deal? A constitutional parliament to review which parts of the constitution and to be elected when? What line on EU accession? Any foreshadowings of likely coalitions after the election? —Nightstallion 17:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've just found news -- a parliamentary committee is to report on the issue of EU membership by 15 April.^[1] —Nightstallion 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been able to find anything on the constitutional parliament, though...? —Nightstallion 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Still no details on that. Haukur (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And the details will be decided when? Any other interesting details I might've missed? Thanks! —Nightstallion 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Haukurth. I'm coming to you about the page Mario Petrucci which you speedily deleted a few days ago. An editor brought the deletion to my attention on my talk page, so I checked it out. I must say that I disagree with your deletion and I do not think the page was too blatant an advertisement to remain on Wikipedia. I haven't restored the page, but I did provide the user a copy of the page before deletion and advised her to add a literary criticism section (). You are not required to restore the article, but I hope you will. Perhaps you could restore it and ad a {{ad}} to the top of it. Just letting you know about the situation, Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning here. I think restoring it with an 'ad' tag would be unkind to the subject. I do not object to a new article on the subject written in an encyclopedic way and I'm glad you've provided the content of the deleted article upon request. I too will happily provide it upon request.

In my view parts like "he has implemented public resources of real practical significance for education, creative writing and study skills, including exciting new forms of creative dialogue between science and poetry (such as his unique contribution to creative writing strategies using science" are promotional writing, not encyclopedic writing. Removing the 'exciting' and 'unique' words just leaves us with toned down promotional writing, not encyclopedic writing.

Or take "He has also brought a number of new concepts into poetry criticism, including Spatial Form and Poeclectics." Neither of the sources given for these claims seem to be reliable sources - one of them doesn't even lead to any text on the subject. Searching for "Poeclectics" on Google Books only gives me one book - by Petrucci himself. I just don't see any indication that Petrucci has successfully introduced this word into poetry criticism in any influential way, the way the deleted article would lead one to believe.

If someone restores the article I will not delete it again but I cannot in good conscience recommend its restoration. Haukur (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the text of the article in a more complete form at User:Anne Prouse/Mario Petrucci (i.e. the text as it was before the deletions of the last couple of days).

Also, you could of course take the matter to WP:DRV to get broader input. Haukur (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, "Anne Prouse" has been mentioned in the press as Petrucci's fiancée. So your idea that Petrucci would be embarrassed may be a bit over-charitable. Wareh (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that she has learnt from the experience and I'm sure that if she makes another attempt it will be better. Haukur (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Malinaccier (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems the Liberal Party is dead and the Alliance could possibly form a government with either of the three other parties... —Nightstallion 13:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Liberal Party usually appears dead until right on election day. I'll admit that they appear deader than usual this election cycle but it's still possible they'll pull through.

A coalition between the Alliance and the Progressive Party would be your best bet for an EU application. But it's very doubtful that those two parties will muster a majority. Haukur (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the most uncertain possible coalition according to the polls right now... We'll see, I suppose. Still no news on the constitutional convention? —Nightstallion 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing really firm yet but we should see the government's proposal soon. Most likely next week, as I understand things. Haukur (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are L-List, Citizens Movement, City Movement (the same as the other one?) and Sovereignty Interest? (All are mentioned in the election article, though I haven't seen a reference for the first two yet.) —Nightstallion 10:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Two parties have emerged to poll about 2% each; Borgarahreyfingin (Citizens' Movement) and L-listi fullveldissinna (L-list of sovereignty supporters). Haukur (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Citizens' Movement is a garden variety 'reform and democracy' type of party. The L-list is mostly a single-issue anti-EU party. Haukur (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And why "L-List"? —Nightstallion 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gods know! Their 'about' page doesn't say and I don't see any obvious explanation. Perhaps as a sort of D-Day, H-Hour kind of thing. Haukur (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, strange. Any news on the assembly details? And is the mood really turning against the EU again so quickly, or will the result of the election finally bring Iceland towards the EU? —Nightstallion 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should now be official which parties will stand in the election -- but I haven't been able to find the info on the official websites...? —Nightstallion 23:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, could you please check if I've made sensible use of the synoptics and kings' sagas in the Eric Bloodaxe article (and other things besides if you like). Feel free to be ruthless. Regards, Cavila (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Wow, "a few adjustments" indeed. This deserves a full read through and I'm really swamped this weekend - hopefully I can get to this sometime next week. Haukur (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Haukur. Since you're from Iceland, I thought that it could be a good idea if you could provide your feedback on the closure of the move proposal for this article a few days ago. In my view, closure was clearly against consensus, but the closing admin claims that the previous title was not in the Latin alphabet. Your feedback could prove most useful. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 20:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the rationale is spurious - Icelandic is written in the Latin alphabet in a way which Greek, Chinese and Russian are not. That clause clearly doesn't apply. I also would have opposed the move on the merits. Haukur (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that at some point along the way, you made adminship.

Belated congratulations. I'm sure it's been no big deal to you.  ;)

I'm just here for a moment or two to look around, but seeing this makes me happy for you.

Perhaps people running the "backstage" around here have learned a little sense after all.

I think I'll check in a bit more often than a couple times a year from now on.

Unfocused 02:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I was browsing through the archives of the missing wikiproject list and saw your listing on Norse Mythology figures. It appears that there are articles for your entire list (except for one god, a topic on gods, and a dictionary definition according to you). I hope you don't mind if I placed placed one of those gods on one of the Missing list wikiproject on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Mythology & Folklore? I was also going to place the other two red links but I wasn't sure if they were suitable (I would let you decide what to do with them). Also I was going to prune your list, but wasn't sure if maybe you like to hold on to the blue links in case you want to go back to them to expand on them further, but anyway just thought I let you know. All the best! Calaka (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Could you be so nice as to write short article about the two new parties contesting the Icelandic election, and perhaps the L-list, too? Thanks! —Nightstallion 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been very responsive on this. I think the L-list hardly merits an article, though its leader Bjarni Harðarson, does. Similarly, I think the Democracy Movement merits an article less than its leader, Ástþór Magnússon, does. The Citizens' Movement is likely to make it into parliament and does merit an article. Haukur (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, whatever you think is best, but it would be nice to be able to link to *some* info on the parties... —Nightstallion 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for the result! :) I've read that the LGM might be more inclined to accept EU membership now, after they strongly underperformed their polls? And I've also read that no matter what, the Progressives and the Citizens' Movement favour EU membership, so there's a majority in parliament either way? Sounds like good news to me... BTW, an article about the new party would be a really good idea now. ;) I'd be especially interested what its ideology is. —Nightstallion 19:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Most commentators have seen the results as good news for the pro-EU side but the left-wing parties still have to try to negotiate something - the LGM can hardly just completely give up on their EU opposition. The Alliance could theoretically form a "pro-EU" government with the progressives and the new party but there are three problems: a) the progressives are lukewarm in their EU support, b) three party governments are usually seen as less stable and less desirable, c) the new party has no coherent ideology, no leader and almost certainly won't have any strong party discipline, d) such a government would have only a 33-30 majority instead of the 34-29 majority enjoyed by the current government.

I have no idea what will happen. The LGM said before the election that under no circumstances would they accept an EU application this summer. The Alliance is strongly pushing for such an application. Haukur (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see... Very exciting. :) —Nightstallion 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I've read in one Icelandic source, now repeated in a German one, there would be a parliamentary majority in favour of an EU membership application... so they could just do that before officially continuing their coalition. :) —Nightstallion 16:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And here's a US source citing the Social Democrats putting pressure on the LGM by mentioning the existence of a parliamentary majority for a EU membership application. :) —Nightstallion 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as expected, the SDA will utilise the majority in the Althing to approve an EU membership application. —Nightstallion 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I have nominated Hrafnkels saga for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right - it was quoted text. However - consider inserting Sigurd Slembe in parenthesis, since the Gadabout is is not well known.

--Sparviere (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That terminology is completely unrelated to personal settings. I believe the term existed before Wikipedia did; it's used in relation to HTML and web pages. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase had been used before, sometimes in ways that make sense, sometimes not. But on Wikipedia it's used to defend the idea that 'personal settings' as set by logged-in Wikipedia users is something important and that editors picking image sizes based on the image and article at hand is somehow wrong and agressive. Haukur (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if the book was published before 1891, I don't see how Charles Huard could have done it unless he was a child prodigy, so I think you're right, and will move it to Commons. Annoying, as it took hours to get everything up on en-wiki, and now I have to do it all again.

By the way: there's actually an eighth illustration in the set - a little stylised image of the World tree on the title page. Anyway, give me a week, I'll try for one or two a day. Though I might mix it up with that other volume we talked about before, but which I proved ueless about at the time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I should thank you for starting the article, as that's what caused me to do some simple web research. Being able to read the language of the community is a must to get a real sense of what is happening, and that I cannot do.

As to your question of why the Baha'i community grew quickly early on, I can't give you the precise or scientific reasons, but I can tell you what my personal views on the subject are. Note as they are personal views, they do not stand any real sociological or scientific tests. I believe it is through tests and difficulties that humans learn and grow spiritually, and as the world went through difficulties people started looking for new answers and new thoughts and the Baha'i teachings resonated with them. However, since the 1990s the Western World has been relatively doing quite well materially, and people started to stop looking toward spirituality, and that it what has led to the rise of people who state they are non-religious. At the same time, however, when people did became more material they noticed that they were missing something, and started looking for something more once again, which has led to the recent rise in people looking for spirituality, but now they are not looking for organized religion as that had given them a bad taste in their mouth, and instead looked to more "spiritual" vs "religious" organizations. Baha'is believe that in the recent past, the Baha'is themselves spent too much time being inward looking, and are now working again to connect the hearts with Baha'u'llah's message of the Unity of Humanity which Baha'is believe is the only real solution to our worldwide problems. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you! I actually agree that the decline in religiosity in the Western World is likely the result of an increase in material well-being. As for the Bahá'í community over here I really don't know much about it - it tends not to make the news. That silly affair with the church back in 1967 is the most substantial news coverage I can find. Haukur (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I had planned ot do polytheism or religion, but mythology picked up faster. You can move it to a working one, because the current title is... offensive AND pov.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Offensive to whom? Haukur (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

People who might still follow it, people who DID follow it, either way calling it Paganism is giving POV to the non germanic religion. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Germanic neopagans are usually happy to self-identify as pagan or heathen. Haukur (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are neopagans. They take it as a sign of pride (and loss of identity...). Either way, calling it paganism, when the article deals with the religion/mythology/ect, not the neopagans. We would be NUETRAL to call it polytheism/whateverism. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get it. In your terminology, is there someone practicing Germanic paganism who is not a neopagan? Haukur (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats not the only problem you know... the other fact is standard: the article is about the pre christian beliefs, but when We look at the celtic page, it shows polytheism, why the difference. Polytheism is the more nuetral of the terms in the first place. Think about itm, did THEY call it paganism when THEY PRACTICED it? We call it paganism because the dominate religion does.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Celtic page should be moved to Celtic paganism or Celtic religion. Emphasizing 'polytheism' sees these religions through just as Christian a framework as using the word 'paganism'. And academics (and even neopagans!) prefer 'paganism' so that's what we should use as well. Who says they were all polytheists anyway? What Tacitus says about the Semnones worshipping Regnator omnium deus sounds pretty monotheistic to me. Haukur (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Then call it religion. It WAS religion, no matter what the... (don't take offensive) fuck historians or the christian s say, it WAS religion and deserves that name jkust as much as christianity does.

We can discuss changing the title to Germanic religion, better take that discussion to the talkpage. But really, there's no need to get offended here - those who do seek to practice these old religions have reclaimed the words 'pagan' and 'heathen'. Haukur (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Then they are not true followers if they actually degrade it. but yes lets--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

you did an excellent job at that article, thank you for your effort! --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for giving it a look! It's still a work in progress. Haukur (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:IB 299 4to Edda.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Edda.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: [[File:Edda.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hæ! I remember you helped me out with some Iceland-related stuff once upon a time. I wonder if you would have any interest in helping us find sources to improve the Icelandic heraldry article. If not, I understand. Either way, thank you for looking. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What an interesting article! I don't actually know much about this subject so the content was mostly news to me.

I don't know if you'd be interested in the flags used by Ásatrúarfélagið, some images here Haukur (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that! It reminds me of some of the heraldic flags and banners we use in the Society for Creative Anachronism. Looks like a very interesting article as well. If we can find proper sources that point to a traditional origin for the heraldic flags used by Ásatrúarfélagið, it might be worth a mention in the article. I would like the article to eventually cover all things heraldic in Iceland, much like the Swedish heraldry article. But for now, I'm happy with any help I can get in improving it! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That was an interesting read indeed. I especially enjoyed the story about Thor turning out the lights on the minister! I was also surprised to learn that there are Buddhists in Iceland. I certainly wouldn't call Iceland a backwater, but Buddhism is pretty far removed from Iceland's traditions. Then again, I always thought it was a little odd that North American society should be so heavily dominated by Middle Eastern religions (Christianity and Judaism). Anyway... interesting article indeed. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Buddhism in Iceland isn't a huge thing - about 0.3% of the population is registered as Buddhist. Buddhists first show up in the 1960 census, which lists two Buddhists (as well as one Muslim and one Jew) - but in the last couple of decades there's been substantial immigration so there's more religious diversity now. There are also a number of Icelandic converts to Buddhism, like in other countries in the West. Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who was elected to the Althing this year, describes herself as "a heathen and a Buddhist".

I really have no idea about those flags and I doubt they're notable enough to mention in the heraldry article. I just thought you might enjoy the pictures and it looks like you did :) Haukur (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and we had the Dalai Lama over earlier this week. Haukur (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's great! What's with all the scaffolding over the church? That is one thing that sticks out in my memory of Iceland - how the biggest building in the whole country (at least as far as I know) is this very impressive church, and yet it seems every farm in the country has its own little church too. It seems like most Icelanders are very religious. In comparison to Swedes they certainly are, but in comparison to Americans, I don't know. Of course Americans are a mixed bag, with millions of atheists and all the way up to suicide cults, domestic terrorists and people who commit murder in the name of religion. Lot of wierdos in America. I'd love to sit in on one of the Dalai Lama's talks, if I ever had the opportunity. One question getting back on topic, I wonder if there is any ecclesiastical heraldry to speak of in Iceland. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallgrímskirkja needs extensive repairs with some regularity. Someone told me it was built with poor materials, I don't know if that is correct. Icelanders are no doubt less religious than Americans by any measure - but I think spiritualism, theosophy and things like that have been bigger here than in many countries. As for ecclesiastical heraldry I'm afraid I'm drawing another blank and some quick searches don't turn up anything juicy. Haukur (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your baby girl! Hope you're all in good health. All the best, Cavila (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Haukur! I wish you all the very best. –Holt (T•C) 10:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) We're all in good health. Haukur (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations dad! Best wishes to your family. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, too, and much hamingja to *** Hauksdottir. Sigo (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all :) Little Hauksdóttir will get a name in a few days. Haukur (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! —Nightstallion 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Guðrún. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Also Jón and Sigurrós. You're at 4RR each, but I'm letting you pass for a moment, because you may think it's a bot error. Now that you are aware it's not, please desist.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude. It's a bot. You want me to "use the talk page to work towards wording and content" with a bot? Haukur (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• As suggested by the closer, we're talking about the best way to handle these at Category talk:Surnames. Please join us.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• These are not surnames. Nevertheless I have commented there. Haukur (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth,

Just so you know what I've done, I've struck out the word "overturn" at the names DRV that you entered and replaced it with "comment". For ease of reference, every user at DRV enters only one bolded !vote, and the nominator does not enter a !vote below his nominating statement, since his nomination serves as his !vote. I could have sworn I changed this before, so I'm thinking maybe you changed it back not understanding why it was changed in the first place, so I thought I'd drop you a friendly note just to explain why it's done that way. It's a merely a housekeeping issue adopted to assist a closer in reading the complete DRV, not an indication of the strength or value of the comment itself. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop striking my comments or parts of them. There was nothing misleading about this at all. You've now done this three times, ignoring my explicitly stated reasons for why I presented my comments this way.

But even despite this, I've now (one minute before you left your message here) reframed my two comments in an attempt to humor you. Haukur (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to be testy. I was simply trying to help you format your comments into the style that is deemed acceptable by most who close DRV discussions. If you don't want that help, that's fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not at all, you are too kind. I'm simply trying to help you in turn by pointing out that if you strike a part of someone's comments and he reverts you with an explanation of how he feels that misrepresents his comments and you then do the exact same edit again while taking no account of this explanation and he reverts you again with the same explanation and you then do it again and call him "shirty" then maybe, just maybe, he might not find the help you are so generously extending to be entirely in his best interests. And another handy trick I've picked up along the way and will gladly share with you: Wikipedia pages have a little tab on top of them marked 'history'. When I find myself thinking "oh my, I could have sworn I made this edit before and yet here the page is, as if I'd never touched it" I've found it extremely helpful to click that history button and see how the text on the page has unfolded, edit by edit, until it reached its present state. Many a time this has allowed me to ascertain how the edits I have made to a page have unfolded. Drunk with this power I've found my mind turning to Heraclitus' saying, "πάντα ῥεῖ". I can indeed never step into the same river twice. And let us not forget Ari Þorgilsson's wise words, hvatki missagt es etc. - it is as if he had seen in his mind's eye the great wiki of history unfolding, page by page, edit by edit, century by century, through the generations - until one beautiful day in June a man of such fragrant nature that his very name could not help but joyfully exclaim it, would step down to help the least of his brethren in his hour of need to format his comments into the ever-gleaming style that even the immortal gods who hold broad heaven, were they to close deletion review discussions, could not help but find most agreeable. Haukur (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, maybe there was a need. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What ambrosial aroma is that I just felt? Haukur (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoever smelt it dealt it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank the 2 of you for producing this glorious exchange. Occuli (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well well, I see your talk page is becoming a veritable stage for humour, both intentional and unintentional, though I don't expect you to actually smile at all of it. Can we sue bots for violation of the 3RR rule? I don't understand what's keeping people from restoring the Icelandic surnames category, but that's prolly wiki for you.

Anyway, just letting you know there's a new infobox you might find useful: Template:infobox Medieval text. For some examples, see Hemming's Cartulary, Vita Sancti Wilfrithi and Cath Finntrágha. Just let me know if anything is missing. All the best, Cavila (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

I tend to laugh in inappropriate places at the movies, I probably do here too.

I've never been big on boxen but this one seems reasonable - I may take it out for a spin next time I'm fiddling with an appropriate article. Thank you! Haukur (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know (doing it here since the DRV is closed), this edit was part of a re-deletion process where Category:Japanese surnames was being re-deleted and manually emptied by me. I could have had a bot do it, but it was a small job so I did it by hand. Rather than re-upmerging to Category:Surnames, I chose to add it to the by-language one that had been created in the meantime by another user. I agree that it should not have been added to the category without a reference, but I did so in large part to avoid the type of complaints that were commonly being lodged at that time by other editors—that I had removed articles from categories and placed them in the "impossible" to use Category:Surnames. (It was a nice try at pinning me down on active participation, though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstanding: I don't think every category without a reference should be removed and I don't think categories can never be added without references. I was only trying to point out inconsistencies on the other side.

Anyway, it was a spirited debate. Haukur (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins appear to have begun to go "rogue" (that is, not respecting anything close to consensus or community wishes), and seem to enjoy absolute impunity in terms of repercussions from their peers regarding such abuses. Badagnani (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this comment about me is appropriate, Badagnani. (The reason I assume it is about me is that you linked to Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames, where you made a comment about my actions.) Haukurth didn't agree with my action either, but he discussed the issue respectfully and didn't accuse others of bad faith motives or of "going rogue". I'm going to copy this discussion to your talk page where I suggest you can respond to me, rather than here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When an admin closes against consensus, and, in your case, exaggeratedly so (from an editor whose extreme, fringe positions on ethnic groups are well known), apparently with a sense of complete impunity--there is no other possible reading of your recent close of the surname categories discussion--"rogue" is a quite appropriate term to use. It is never, however, too late to admit a serious error in judgement and make things right. I would be perfectly happy to accept such a reversal in the cases of improper closes you have recently engaged in. Badagnani (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page, since I don't see much point in involving Haukurth in this discussion unless he chooses to be involved in it. Also saves us from duplicating comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, do you believe this to be an accurate statement? Badagnani (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's in a man's heart. I think GO has closed those surname discussions against consensus but whether that is due to him pushing an agenda because of strongly held unusual beliefs or whether he just isn't good at determining consensus or whether he's generally competent but just made mistakes in these cases I do not know. I'd never seen the guy before I got embroiled in this surname stuff and I haven't made an effort to study his career. Haukur (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth! You might not recall, but you took down my first article here on Wikipedia in April 2006 (I'll bet its somewhere in your huge collection of archives, but its right here). Back then I was just another Wiki newbie, and now I'm bombing nearly every article with {{fact}} and putting WP:MOS (capitalization) down! Not meaning to bother you, I'm just reminiscing... :-) Thanks! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I'm glad you stuck around - you seem to have done well for yourself :) And congratulations on finding the love of your life - I found mine at 18 and that's worked out really well. Haukur (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I can join you there – I've found mine at 17 and it's also been working great for quite a long time now. :) —Nightstallion 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

♥♥♥ Ah, to be young and in love! ♥♥♥ How's that for Wikilove? Kind regards to all! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Myth2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I am curious, in a friendly way, about some of your edits where you claim that some names or not canonical English. Would love to know what you mean and what you base your POV on. Anwynd, for example, has been a well known English version of Anund for hundreds of years, the only acceptable English version in fact. Anund is definitely is not an English name. Bröt-Anund translates quite literally as Anwynd the Breaker. Translations and clarifications like that add value to articles about people with very strange names to the English eye. Bröt-Anund (without that translation) is phonetically difficult, practically impossible, in English and leaves an English reader without anything whatsoever of value as a name in English. Your edit there is like saying that Charles the Bald is not canonical English for Karl den skallige. Would you like me to stop translating epithets and such to English and stop clarifying names like this to our English readers, which is part of what I thought I would try to contribute to articles like that? If not, I would appreciate if you would reverse your Anund edit. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to find a lot of English sources using "Charles the Bald" and I can't find any using "Anwynd the Breaker". The article already gives the meaning of the name, more accurately and usefully than as "Anwynd the Breaker". Haukur (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for asking (I don't know what else to do with you), but how does someone who does not even know how to spell lead (lede?) have the gumption to act over and over as if he/she were an expert on the English language? Bröt = bråte in Swedish = break in English. Anund in Swedish = Anwynd in English. These are the facts, to anyone who knows English (and Swedish), regardless of your personal POV. Your admixtures of irrelevant Icelandic and other ancient names, in bold font and in the leads of many articles, is not at all constructive to en:WP. I would appreciate if you would stop some of these less than knowledgeable edits which border on being disruptive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I see that the slang word lede actually is acceptable WP lingo - sorry I did not know that! - but I stand by my opinion of some of your your edits, bordering on article ownership, nevertheless. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Haukurth. We've never dealt with each other directly on Wikipedia, but I've noticed the quality of your edits in your area of expertise and I have a question for you: Apparently, Einarr Skúlason wrote a verse about 6 of Aegir's daughters. After searching online, I came up with two editions of the verse. Here they are:

(A) Œsir hvast at hraustum | Himinglæva þyt sævar, | glymr Unnar vex, grenni | Göndlar skúfs, ok Dúfa; | brædd strýkr Blóðughadda, | brimsolgin fellr Kolga, | hlýr, þars Hefring stœrir | haflauðr, of við rauðan.

(B) Æsir hvast at hraustum | Himinglæfa þyt sævar, | (glymr Unnar vex) grenni | göndlar skúfs ok Dúfa. | Brædd strýkr Blóðughadda; | brimsólgin fellr Kólga; | hlýr skilr Hefríng stærir | haflöðr of við rauðan.

Is there any way you could dig up an English translation of this? I would prefer something I can cite, but I'd even be happy with something unpublished. Thanks in advance. —Aryaman (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's apparently preserved in Snorri's Edda. On p. 141 in Faulkes' 1987 translation we have: "Himinglæva stirs up the roar of the sea against the brave..." but the rest of the verse isn't there. Bother. The verse will appear in English translation in Vol. 3, Poetry from Treatises on Poetics, in the new English translation - but I guess Vol. 3 is still a few years out. I see Brodeur's translation also has only the first two lines; "Himinglæva sternly stirreth, And fiercely, the sea's wailing." Those are the only complete English translations of Skáldskaparmál I know of. If any translation will do you should go with Finnur Jónsson's Danish translation, his is still the standard edition (and it's conveniently available online). If an unpublished English translation is better I can cobble something together. Haukur (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on Jónsson's Danish translation. After some digging, I was able to locate it:

"Himinglœva of Dúfa ophidser stœrkt søens brus mod den tapre kriger; Unns brusen tager til; Bloduhadda stryger de begede stavne, hvor Hefring rejser havskummet; den glubske Kolga styrter over de røde planker." [Jónsson, Finnur (1973:454). Den Norsk-Islandske Skyaldedigtning, B Rettet Tekst Første Bind. København: Rosenkilde og Bagger. (Online)]

My Danish is absolutely terrible, but I'm parsing it something like this:

"Himinglæva and Dúfa violently agitate the sea’s shower against the valiant warrior; Unn’s spray rushes forward; Blóðughadda hammers the warping prow, where Hefring raises the sea-foam; the ferocious Kolga jets over the red planks."

Is that anywhere near close? Thanks again for your help. —Aryaman (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not too far off. I'd rather teach a man to fish so here are a few more pointers: a) Finnur's A volumes have the diplomatic text of the manuscripts with any important variants. It's always worth checking those to see whether the verse is well preserved, whether there are important variant readings or whether Finnur felt emendations or a whole-scale reconstruction of a verse was called for. Admittedly it's hard to evaluate this data if you have little or no Old Norse but if you're doing anything at all scholarly you should at least take a look. b) The Danish text in the B volumes is something between a translation and a paraphrase. One of its characteristics is that almost all kennings are dissolved into plain words - in this particular verse grenni Göndlar skúfs ("feeder of the skua of Göndul") comes out as simply 'kriger'. c) The Old Norse text in front of the Danish paraphrase is a rearrangement of the verse into prose word order - a lot easier to deal with than the unmodified verse. d) Finnur's Lexicon Poeticum (available online) is an indispensable guide to his interpretation of the verses. e) Finnur's literary history is also often a valuable guide for understanding the choices he made in his skaldic edition. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Jónsson's paraphrase is the best I'm going to be able to find for the time being. I'll definitely keep your tips in mind while working with Jónsson's editions in the future. Thanks again for all the help. -Aryaman (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your recent comment at Trollkyrka regarding nine types of wood. I have some information on that, if you interested. If not, just ignore the rest of this message. :)

Wuttke, Adolf (1869). Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart. Berlin: Wiegand & Grieben. link

"Neunerlei Holz, zu vielen Zauberzwecken verwandt, auch beim Notfeuer, wird von lauter in der alten Religion und im Aberglauben bedeutsamen Bäumen und Sträuchern entnommen, besonders Kreuzdorn, Holunder, Taxus (Pommern); es dürfen nur Bäume sein, die kein Steinobst tragen; dieses Holz wehrt bösen Zauber ab, und dient auch zur Erkennung der Hexen." §121 p. 93

"Gegen Abzehrung und andere "Suchten", das heisst schleichende Krankheiten überhaupt, wendet man in Pommern und Meklenburg das "Suchtenbrechen" an; man bricht von neun verschiedenen Bäumen, die kein Steinobst tragen, unter Nennung der drei heiligen Namen kleine Stücke, die unter Gebetsformeln in ein Gefäss mit Wasser geworfen werden; dadurch wird die Sucht des Kranken gebrochen, und sollte er auch mehrere Meilen entfernt sein; in gleichem Falle wird auf ähnliche Weise gewahrsagt." §538 p. 336.

For the analogous Vedic ritual from the Atharva Veda, in which 10 kinds woods instead of 9 are used, see:

Bloomfield, Maurice (1897). Hymns of the Atharva Veda. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pg. 34 (II, 9. "Possession by demons of disease, cured by an amulet of ten kinds of wood") and the accompanying note on pg. 291.link

I normally wouldn't say anything, but seeing as you helped me out recently, I thought I could at least try and return the favor - though, perhaps your comment at Trollkyrka was more rhetorical? Though, on second thought, it doesn't really answer your question. Ah, oh well. Anyways, thanks again. :) —Aryaman (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are one of the editors who have previously removed the addition of this term from the article on Ragnar Lodbrok, an additional input and clarification from you on Talk:Ragnar_Lodbrok#Rayner_Lothbroc might be helpful, as the issue still seem to be unresolved. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I really just don't have anything to add. If he wants the name included he has to show that it sees some use. He hasn't done that - mostly he just seems to be whining about you and me having poor English skills. That's irrelevant to the point of not being worth responding to. Haukur (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, had not noticed that section above on your talk page. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whining? Why use your English skills to insult people? I think you need to respond to that serious problem if you attempt to dominate articles on en.WP (English Wikipedia). Respond! Respond! To your own limitations! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Muhuhaha, article domination! Soon I shall have wealth and might unique here on Wikipedia... Haukur (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sæll, kæri vin!

Long time no see and all that.

I stumbled upon a vandalistic article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B3ti_gerey%C3%B0ing

which deserves to be removed. Read it and you will be convinced.

Tóti gereyðing did not exist, and the alleged authors of the "Reference work" bear the improbable names of Bjarkz Gizurarson and Kylfi Th. Gíslason. I was no particular fan of Gylfi Þ. Gíslason, but this is a misuse of a name and offensive at that. Before you take action, you might want to look at the article's history. It's amazing. There are several changes to a "contribution" by a vandal.

Please have this removed. All the best Io (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Meyri vitleysan, ég eyddi þessu núna. Haukur (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kærar þakkir. Svona hálfvitaháttur fer alveg geysilega í taugarnar á mér. Kær kveðja Io (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your comment in your recent Old Norse edit. I was pretty sure that gemination or ligation with itsself as a means of marking vowel length started during the 14th century or so, the tail end of Old Norse. Compare manuscripts from MeNoTa and their dates. I know you said it depends on the time period, but I'd say that 14th century on spelling conventions would be the exception, rather than the norm. LokiClock (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main rule throughout the medieval period is that vowel length is not marked. A few old manuscripts do mark it with accents but once gemination (especially of aa) comes to the scene it becomes more widespread than the accent marks were. There are many more manuscripts from the 14th or 15th centuries than from the 12th and 13th centuries and many of the later manuscripts contain copies of earlier texts - so if you do need to deal with a lot of Old Norse texts I think you'll probably come across gemination more often than accents. But maybe I'm wrong - I mostly work with late manuscripts myself so that colors my view. Haukur (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That is quite true, but 14th century is only very liberally classified as Old Norse, and 15th century on is decidedly Middle Icelandic. And of course there are going to be more manuscripts from the later time periods with more widespread wealth and literacy, that's why you can't judge an average orthography from sheer number alone. You can only really use numbers to accurately deduce the normal writing conventions of contemporaneous periods. LokiClock (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

*shrug* The division into time periods is arbitrary and varies between authors - Finnur Jónsson's history of Old Norse literature goes down to 1550. If you throw out the 14th century manuscripts you lose out an awful lot, including all extant copies of the Prose Edda. If you were describing the orthography of Ancient Greek you would presumably not constrain yourself to the scattered fragments from the 5th century BCE but describe the spelling of the—much later—manuscripts the texts are actually preserved in. But we don't have to debate this at length - my main point is that vowel length in Old Norse manuscripts is usually left unmarked, I don't think that's controversial. Haukur (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have answered it. LokiClock (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And replied. LokiClock (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the statement you were asking about. Tell me if you think I succeeded. LokiClock (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice your comments at the discussion on drawings of people. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rama. It would be extremely useful to have comment from Wikipedians with a good understanding of the Wikipedia policy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sæll aftur!

Ég sé ekki, að þú hafir verið virkur á Wikiheimildinni undanfarið svo að ég spyr hér: 70 ára ártíð Einars Benediktssonar var fyrir fáum dögum. Er hann ekki þar með almenningseign? Ég setti a.m.k. inn 2 kvæði og brot af því þriðja inn eftir hann. Kær kveðja Io (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sæll sjálfur! Strangt til tekið er það reyndar ekki fyrr en 1. janúar 2011 sem kallinn kemst í almenningseign en sjálfsagt fer enginn að elta ólar við þetta. Haukur (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Haukurth! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Jónas Kristjánsson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sæll. Ég fiktaði aðeins í kaflanum um lýðfræði í drögunum að greininni þinni. Í raun er þetta endurvinnsla á því sem ég bætti við greinina Religion in Iceland. Það má vera að þér finnist þetta hlutdrægt eða frjálsleg túlkun en þú breytir þessu þá bara. Það mætti kannski geta þess líka hvernig skráningu í trúfélög hefur hingað til verið háttað, að börn séu sjálfkrafa skráð í trúfélag móður; það skýrir tölfræðina að vissu leyti. Cessator (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your support, then and now! A pessimistic prognosis was understandable—I try to be an optimist, but realistically I only put the odds at about 50-50 going in. (It was especially disappointing when the very first vote was an oppose...) When you get kicked enough times, it's hard to imagine that the next moment won't bring with it yet another kick. But this whole years-long ordeal has been a learning experience, too, and I think it's made it possible for me to be a better admin than I was before. Anyone who expects me to fall back into some kind of controversy or, worst of all, close an AfD, is going to be very surprised. Anyone who expects me to be a hyper-vigilant guardian of the wiki may be disappointed, too, because I'm still going to focus overwhelmingly on content creation—I'll just do some occasional vandal-fighting and chores on the side. Too much admin work is just plain unhealthy. :) Everyking (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooohhhhh my goodness. It is quite an honor (and surprise) to be receiving my first barnstar, and I should say that you being the benefactor gives it much of its weight for me. LokiClock (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I agree. Since I don't have a decent image processing program at the moment, would you be able to perform some basic editing on these? Thanks, –Holt (T•C) 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not really that necessary anymore, since I got the pictures again with a proper scanner and used the simple crop functions I have on my computer. It's up to you. –Holt (T•C) 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth

I saw your recent edit to the Icesave dispute. I agree the feb 2010 talks need a new section, so thanks. I do have a question after your edit (blame it to my non existent knowledge of the Icelandic language that I could not figure out from the sources). As it reads now the sections suggests that: (1) Iceland went to London to make an offer (2) UK and NL rejected that, but made their own offer; which Iceland rejected (3) Iceland made another offer (ie not the one mentioned in 1) which UK and NL rejected.

This is not very clear, as it may also be possible that the Icelandic offer 1 and 3 were the same; and even more confusing, it may be possible that Iceland came to London with their offer (1 and 3), and the UK and the NEtherlands with theirs (2), and that the offers were all mutually rejected.

As the text stands now I am not sure what the situation is. So I think we should rewrite a bit. If you can tell (here) or on Icesave dispute talk, which of the 3 stories it is that should be there, I can make a first go at restructuring the new paragraph. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, yeah, there is definitely plenty of room for confusion. So, first Iceland comes in with a totally new offer - which basically involves changing some Icelandic laws and changing the way Landsbanki assets are handled in order to get more money to the UK and the Netherlands without the Icelandic government having to pay for it directly. The UK and the Netherlands rejected this offer but came up with a new one of their own. Their offer is much less radical - it is based on previous agreements but with different interest conditions. The Icelanders rejected this offer but made a counterproposal involving different interest conditions (so, the second Icelandic offer is based on the UK&N offer and not on the first Icelandic offer). The UK&N rejected this offer. That's the way I understand it anyway - it's hard to get a clear picture because the negotiations are not public and the reporters rely on leaks to some extent.

Now, the Icelandic politicians seem to agree that the most recent UK&N offer is better for Iceland than the December deal. But the December deal (or, strictly, the law allowing it) is up for a referendum in a couple of weeks. With a better offer on the table the December deal seems obsolete and the referendum is in a weird position. Haukur (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to rephrase the section to make this clearer, but I do agree that all the non-public meetings make it hard to be sure. I guess we have to keep track on how it evolves (also in relation to the 6 march referendum). By the way, Dutch media suggested that the new negiotiation was indeed intended to circumvent the referendum. Seems like a logical step, getting rid of the uncertainty of a referendum, by coming up with a new agreement (taking some loss (UK/NL perspective) but gaining a lot of certainty. But that was very speculative so I have not added it. If you have a good source supporting that this was indeed the reason for the february meetings, please add something like it. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Icelandic politicians have been very explicit that they hoped they could strike a new deal before the referendum and then cancel the referendum. I'll see about another look at the article tomorrow. Haukur (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dutch media have not been picking up on that, but then again, we had some Olympic successes and drama's, and the fall of our government, so attention was probably elsewhere. Arnoutf (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Haukurth. I was curious as to whether or not you knew of any literature discussing the interesting details of the iconography (for lack of a better term) of representations of Odin in Icelandic manuscripts. In particular, I had the following images in mind:

Are these all from the same manuscript? If so, is it known if they were done by the same hand? I'm particularly interested in two features:

• The "sunflower" which appears to grow out of Odin's neck (?) in three of the images, all bearing a human face.
• The "trident" form, which appears prominently in his hat, in Sleipnir's tack, in the weapon/sceptre he's wielding in the second image (strangely reminiscent of a vajra), and, somewhat elaborated, at the top of "Valhalla" in the fourth.

Any information you could supply on this would be helpful. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. serious hat 04:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:AfD/TB. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:AfD/TB redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John of Reading (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't understand what you think when you are saying that in page about that giant no need infobox - isn't more clearer. Everything in that infobox is right, I wrote the same things from text on page.--Mychele (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing the same thing twice doesn't make it clearer. Haukur (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychele Trempetich (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sæll!

Það er orðið allt of langt síðan, en ég er enn á lífi. Ég varði talsverðum tíma í greinasafnið Islandsk sprog og Danir virtust nokkuð sáttir. Ég er reyndar fremur ánægður með kaflann Nydannelsesteknik, en það efni hefi ég ekki séð tekið fyrir áður á sama hátt.

Annars sérðu af greinunum, sem vísað er í, að ég er talsvert gefinn fyrir hreina málmyndalýsingu, en þó með athugasemdum. Þekkirðu einhvern, sem nennir að þýða þetta á ensku? Ég held sjálfur að þetta sé betri grein (og greinar) en eru í ensku Wikipedíunni. Kær kveðja eftir mörg ár. :-) Io (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sæll, og ég þakka hólið. Verkið er þó ekki fullunnið og sjálfur ætla ég í wikifrí (nema hvað ég mun hjálpa brazilískum skjólstæðingi með íslenzku endrum og eins). Ég er, eins og áður sagði, ekki rétt ánægður með ensku greinina, þótt ég eigi víst einhvern slatta í henni. Svo að það dæmist á aðra að þýða og betrumbæta, ef þér finnst það við hæfi. Það var gaman að heyra í þér aftur. Kær kveðja Io (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. As part of the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project, I have added some sources to the article on Jónas Kristjánsson which you originally created long ago. I am looking for a source for the text, "His novel, The Wide World, is set in Viking age North America," i.e., an ISBN number or something to verify he wrote the book. Perhaps you could help? Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am embarrassed by those old unreferenced articles! I'm happy you have rescued this one. Here's an article about Jónas as a novelist: Haukur (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PD-Originality. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PD-Originality redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kelly ^hi! 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Haukurth. You have new messages at Physics is all gnomes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Very Secret Diaries (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 16 for File:Bert Acosta Obituary 1954.jpg about proving a negative when a renewal notice is not found. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You may also have an interest as a dispassionate third party concerning the stub articles for Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 21, 2011 Being interested in anthropology I have at times followed the development of this article. A year or so ago it seemed to be taking different POV into account. Now it has given way to an ideological approach, reducing "femininity" to simple physical "femaleness". This is blatantly one-sided, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Femininity, for most people, still suggests distinctive traits of character, ways of behaving, reaction towards others, etc. etc. that go deeper than what is merely physical. This idea is not an outdated cultural or religious prejudice that deserves little notice (here it gets none). It is an idea that has been present over the ages, permeating art and culture. In modern times it was defended by Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Virginia Woolfe, etc. not in the name of the Bible, etc. but in that of an objective understanding of the richness of having two distinctive human modes of expressing humanity: the masculine and the feminine. To ignore that viewpoint is the make a totally one-sided and prejudiced presentation. I would suggest a presentation that gives both A) the more 'traditional' view of femininity; and B) the more recent views that react from this concept and tend to reduce the term to a simple difference in body parts. I can write some of the first; and even outline aspects of the second (where I think I could do a better job than what is represented in the current article), and leave the completion of that to others. [Since this is a feeler, so as to see what people think, let me single out just two concrete points in the present article which reveal a narrowness of approach, verging on the ridiculous. 1) large breast size and cleavage are presented as a main parameter of femininity. But this is to talk about femaleness, not femininity. Audrey Hepburn is a classical example of a woman considered very feminine - even though her breasts were small and she had little cleavage. 2) Female body shape and Corset... Here the emphasis on femaleness is again clear. To highlight 'corset', etc. in an article on femininity, is indeed to corset the scope of an encyclopedia article.]Unimpeder (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, sorry, I only just saw this now. I'm afraid I haven't thought about the subject in years and I doubt I have anything useful to contribute. Good luck! Haukur (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

hi, A bot deleted a ton of photos from Steamtown, USA suddenly and without warning. Those photos were from an online acquaintance who gave me permission. If I didn't upload them correctly I wish I would have a chance to fix the problem. The article is a GA, has been on DYK and I am trying for FA. According to the bot talk page there have been problems with it deleting images that should be. Can you please help. --Ishtar456 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted you because you had posted something about blocking this bot on the user page. But I am putting this concern in at the commons. Thanks

I'm mostly inactive now so I'm glad you've taken the matter elsewhere. Good luck! Haukur (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I tell you about there's an Old Norse Wikipedia project in the Wikimedia Incubator. Perhaps, you want to contribute.

Here's the link --> 12qwas (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sæll! User:91.148.159.4 deleted some Old Norse morphology info about the Norse past participle without checking the sources. However, they made a minor edit afterwards and I'm afraid I don't have the privaleges to undo the earlier edit. Would you fix it? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(this is resolved)

Dear Haukurth,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I created Irreligion in Iceland using your information I hope your like the article feel free to modify it. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if he was NN five years ago, he appears to barely pass now. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I always assumed that if the ogonek became well enough supported, we could switch to using it. If that day has come, then that's all good. Haukur (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, some real-world testing has proven me wrong. Most of the old browsers are now fading quickly... but the default Google browser on Android tablets and smartphones (about 60+million people aka >10% of our readership) comes with a stripped-down font that has no o-ogonek. This is not a technical limitation, but an engineering tradeoff... because 3rd-party browsers for those devices work with o-ogonek just fine. Thus, there is hope, that in the future, auto-update will suddenly make all those so-called modern devices compliant with typography which has been around since the 1100s. Sigh. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and please accept my apologies on behalf of the tech-wallahs of the world. May we one day straighten up and fly right. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done with the testing! We'll keep playing the waiting game, then. Good old waiting game. Haukur (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Haukurth/Archive12,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 00:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Jónsi (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, hatnotes are more useful

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Jónsi (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PamD 12:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey! You haven't been that active on Wikimedia lately, but I have been looking for someone who can record Icelandic examples, and noticed you have recorded some. Would you be able to record some audio illustrations of Icelandic pronunciation for various articles, such as Aspirated consonant? — Eru·tuon 02:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi: Back in 2007 you gave us an article on Vilborg Dagbjartsdóttir. After noticing he was the article of the month on is., I've just made us a short account of her husband. If you still look here, I'd be grateful if you'd check it for errors and omissions. *Waving*, Yngvadottir (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you ever got my message that I used information you created to make Irreligion in Iceland. If you wish to further alter it please do. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It was silly on your part to delete the article on Rathindra Babu in 2006. You didn't notice that he had done some notable contributions for rural farmers in Bengal and even missed out the information of his leadership of the Viswa-Bharati University. Message by Slugsheir, 1 Feb, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.85.156 (talk)

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Haukur, as you are the filer of this ArbCom case, I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement, where I provided some evidence. This is because I expect to leave Wikipedia shortly, and I may not be involved in the ArbCom case further. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep an eye on this. Haukur (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The request for arbitration Disputed_Signpost_article has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. SQL^{Query me!} 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've reinserted runes for Odin and Tyr based on the Ribe Skull fragment... thoughts on that? We don't appear to have an article on that artefact, which we should probably address. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, that ghastly thing. We definitely should write an article on it. I'll grant you that for 'uþin' but 'hutiur' is pretty obscure and debated. Haukur (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at the 12th C Bryggen rune stick B380, which also has Odin as inscribed on it. The first rune is not clear... how do you interpret it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't make it out from what pictures I have but there's a transcription of it on page 30 in that MacLeod-Mees book. Haukur (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made a start on the article: Ribe skull fragment Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Good work! Maybe get a DYK out of it? Haukur (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm gay myself you can take your homophobia accusation and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. I have restored my post; standards for discussion contributions are not set by the least comprehending person present, and more formally WP:TPO provides Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. I object, so if you don't like it open a thread somewhere on the subject and see what kind of laugh you get.

As for my prior blocks, I get clueless references to it, such as yours, often enough that I have a bit of a canned response to it: You obviously missed the userbox at the top of my user page...

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).

... not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and "Unblocked" so on. I leave them on my user page for all to see. Since your activity for most of the last ten years has been limited to the one edit per year required to maintain your admin status, you're probably unaware of what happened to admins who tried to pull this kind of stunt in the past (e.g. ); most are either no longer admins or no longer editing. You should probably think about why that is. EEng 17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You are applying a gay stereotype to a user in order to insult him. Whether or not the comment was intentionally homophobic, it is inappropriate commentary that constitutes a personal attack. I hope you reconsider and remove the image and caption. – Anne drew 18:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You made fun of a use and threw out the "f" (not not that "f" work), that's a personal attack , WP:PA says so. Of course you gonna get blocked. If I was Hakurth, you would still be blocked, and I'd extend it for this grave dancing! Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Haukurth has shown he can grow and learn. How about you two? EEng 03:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  I am so sorry I asked you to retract a personal attack. I won't expect established editors follow our conduct policies ever again. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. – Anne drew 18:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  But it wasn't a personal attack, as the universal opinion at ANI confirms; that you can't see that speaks to your ignorance and lack of sophistication. I and others have been cutting you some slack because you appear to be a young person inexperienced in the ways of the world, but if you keep this up you're gonna get one of my patented beat-downs reserved for the stubbornly impenetrable, and I don't think Haukurth wants that here on his talk page. So smarten up: listen more and mouth off less. EEng 19:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Your denial of making a personal attack would be more convincing if it didn't itself contain multiple insults. – Anne drew 20:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)