User talk:Berig

Welcome! You're making great edits on mediæval Scandinavian issues. Haukur 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Haukur! I am glad that you finally got your adminship.--Berig 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it comes in handy :) Glad that you're here again, even in this low-profile form. In recent news I'm happy with the progress we've made at kings' sagas and I'm currently working on getting Battle of Svolder up to FA quality. Haukur 15:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sometimes I just get the itch to fix a few things on WP. If you are not to short on time (as I am ATM), I'd be very grateful if you could add translations to the lausavísur of Þórvaldr Hjaltason.--Berig 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and it's great to see you working on skalds. Quite a few of them have articles now (User:Haukurth/Skáldatal). I've been meaning to write about Gunnlaugr ormstunga for ages, I imported the Uggla text on sv but haven't done anything here yet. I'll check Þórvaldr and see if I can add something useful. Haukur 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to run off and teach now, but Gunnlaugr makes me tempted to stay and translate the Uggla article ;-).--Berig 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't find any English translation of Þórvaldr's verses (oh, not to have a University library at hand...) except for the second half of the first one: [1] I can add my own if you give me a bit of time to puzzle this out :) Haukur 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like doing a free translation, I would be happy to see one.--Berig 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time with Þórvaldr. I can understand all the words but I can't make it into a coherent sequence of speech:

Farið til Fýrisvallar, folka tungls, hverr's hungrar, vörðr, at virkis garði vestr kveldriðu hesta ;

• "Farið til Fýrisvallar" - go to Fýrisvöllr
• "folka tungls vörðr" - guard of the heavenly body of the battle (guard of sword; warrior)
• "at virkis garði" - towards the fortress
• "vestr" - to the west
• "hverr's hungrar" - whoever feels hungry
• "kveldriðu hesta" - of the horses of the night-rider (horses of the trollwife; wolves)

Presumably the wolves are those who feel hungry for the slain at Fýrisvöllr but what's the warrior doing there? Maybe we're supposed to assume an "ok" in there and get: "Go west to Fýrisvöllr, to the fortress, warrior [and] any wolf who is hungry." But I'm not sure enough about this to put it into the article. Haukur 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from this it seems that Finnur and Kock disagreed substantially on how to intepret these verses. Haukur 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother then :). These poems were challenging even for the contemporary audience, IRC.--Berig 18:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two interesting runestones raised in memory of warriors who fell "when kings fought", possibly referring to the Battle of Svolder or the Battle of Áin helga. I've procured a picture of one at Image:Aarhus mask stone.jpg. An article wouldn't be amiss... ;) Haukur 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Berig 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work in the Geatish and Gothic articles. Also thanks for working on the Geatish section also. ;) - User:Doctor Hesselius

Thanks. If you are interested in Geats, I have added a small article on a very minor character - Jarl Ottar.--Berig 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Haukur 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at them and make corrections and suggestions as appropriate. Thanks for the heads up. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am grateful for feedback in this field. I am surprised that the general interest is so cool considering the importance of Beowulf in the English-speaking world.--Berig 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at Hroðgar. Your additions are excellent. I can't think of any substantive changes (only minor grammar issues). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am glad and grateful that you have had a look at hit.--Berig 16:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back man :) dab (ᛏ) 21:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Berig, I'm so glad to see you active again. Please, if (and when) you have a chance, would you mind tackling the problematic lack of sources and/or scholarly discussion in the Sweyn article in more detail? I was so happy to see someone editing there. I have it on my watch list after having noticed it only very recently, and seeing that it consisted of one single, horribly long paragraph. I split it into sub-sections, but I haven't had the time or energy to work on it. The article needs references in the worse way as it seems to have been rocked by serious POV wars, making everybody with expertise abandon it. I think that the sentence you removed may have a place in the article if it is referenced properly, but people need to step up to the plate and source their statements. All sides. Best wishes, Pia 16:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally support that plan of action Berig. Adding ^{[citation needed]} would be a good way to start the process of improvement and might help in getting more people involved so that the article shapes up and gets the GA status it deserves; There are a lot of hip goatee "fork beards" on the streets of LA these days---yet, I bet most of them have no clue who the most famous fashion icon of the style was, especially since he's not even listed here: List_of_famous_bearded_people. ;) He, he. Pia 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer at sub-headings on that famous bearded people list, I suddenly realize that I'm split about where to place Gustav Wasa though: Should he be under the headline "Art and entertainment" for being such a skilled spin master of PR tales about himself that his tales about being poked in the hay by evil horned Danes has survived to this day in the Swedish elementary school history books in Scania, placing him among the first true unapologetic and powerful self promoters in Swedish history, or should he go under "Military figures" for having "laid the foundation for Sweden's professional army that was to make Sweden into a regional superpower in the 17th century", or should he be placed right under the entry "Devils" under the subhead "Others", for having "laid the foundation" for that viciously arrogant superpower idea which caused so much death and destruction in Southern Scandinavia? Sigh. Choices, choices. OK, I'll better just put him among the royals and be done with him then. ;) Pia 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Statements about historic 'truth', 'evidence' etc are usually POV influenced and superfluous. On a different note: it would be nice if we could locate a reasonably well-argued, peer-reviewed article about his life, written in an easily-graspable style that gives a more general overview of the issues involved, as well as an overview of the contentions about the sources people have used to base biographies about him on. I have to go look for some non-cyber-space related stuff in the archives this afternoon, so I'll do a quick search of recently published articles about him, to see if there's something new out there that we can use as well. Love, and later, Pia 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berig, I added some sources to fulfill some of the ^{[citation needed]} requests, but there's still a lot of stuff needing to be sourced, but, yawn, I'm too sleepy to continue. Please, could you look it over when you get a chance, just to make sure I didn't totally scramble the page and spell things backwards etc? Adam of Bremen is giving me a lot of grief. So many of the sources I have checked seem totally disenchanted by him, but still, their arguments seem to build on his tales to a very large extent. And what to do about the section on religion? Are you able to tell which sources that information has been picked from? I downloaded the Royal Historical Society/History Today dissertation of the year for 2002, but it was basically about the story on Saint Edmund and the memorial coinage after Sweyn's death. Not much use. BTW, I made the beard fashion statement invisible for now, because I haven't been able to find anything about men's facial hair fashion of the era, so far. No, I have got to get to bed now. Best, Pia 11:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Eric the victorious.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am preparing an article about this poorly-documented and -understood time in Russian history, for eventual migration into the main article space. I would like to make it as comprehensive as possible. Your comments and additions (including from sources critical of or in opposition to the theories presented so far) would be most welcome. In particular I would like to expound on the attitude of both Normanists and anti-Normanists to this issue. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and surprising article, and well-referenced. I have heard of these Khakans before, and on a personal note, I have wondered if they referred to a jarl named Håkan.--Berig 21:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting notion. It is possible, because Chacanus appears in Bertin's work to be a name... But of course ibn Rustah and others also refer to a khagan Rus. I remember reading something once about Sviatoslav using the title but can't find the reference. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article to the main space. Rus' Khaganate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I have noticed your changes, and have to say that these are changes for the worse. 1. You changed descriptions that are fitting into descriptions that are very vague. 2. Your change of the Jastorf mention, is of a logic, that i do not understand. The Jastorf culture ended before the Langobards were mentioned by the Romans, and because of that you claim it to be unfitting to call the Langobards people of the Jastorf culture. That is nonsense in my opinion. The Langobards were people of the Jastorf and later iron age cultures and can be reffered to as such at any given time. 3. It is a proven fact, due to the reasons i listed, that the Langobards settled the Lower Elbe lands in the 1st. Century AD, and not, like you state, a "suggestion". So this change was the worst of all. 4. The citation you needed, is from Dr. Eckert Frey. German Archaeologist and head of the Johann Friedrich Danneil Museum. (User:LOM)

I understand that my changes render the text more vague than your assertions. But, WP is not for asserting what you think is certain, but for presenting what different sources say about the matter. This has to do with Wikipedia:neutral point of view. Moreover, any assertion, such as the ones you add needs to be referenced according to Wikipedia:citing sources. The end date of the Jastorf culture is 1 AD, i.e. before your sources talk about the Langobards, and so the labelling is an anachronism.--Berig 07:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly are these assertions that you talk about?

Peterculus?

Tacitus?

The Archaeological sites?

Dr. Eckart Frey's works?

The Jastorf culture zone?

Please be more precise.

Further more, i have stated in my previous post to you that, it doesnt matter if the Langobards are mentioned after the end of jastorf culture by the Romans. They were a people from this culture and can be reffered to as such. (User:LOM)

Please, just cite sources, both primary sources and secondary sources, instead of just asserting things. However obvious, and clear-cut, things are to you, they may not be as obvious to the reader.--Berig 08:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont precise your problems in terms of assertions, than i can not help you. I have listed all sources i have above, pick one for your concerning assertion, because i do not know which specific assertion you mean.(User:LOM)

Hint: if you see this ^{[citation needed]} it is a suggestion to add a reference.--Berig 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, was that all? Are you happy now, or are there any further assertions that are bothering you. For the future, you should address this first, or inform yourself instead of deleting info without knowledge of the material. Furthermore dont act like a smartass and change terms like Langobard saga to the false term Langobard Tradition. Or the Title "Historically and Archaeologically known origins" to whatever you changed it to. Or was this not clear to you as well?(User:LOM)

Please refrain from adhominem attacks in the future, and observe Wikipedia:civility. Calling people smartass is frowned upon in WP.--Berig 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i have looked at your changes, and must say, that they are good and a definate improvement. So i apologize for the first bits about your intentions, which i misunderstood. As for the Scadinavia island note. I did read on several notes that the Langobards or Winnili (back than) claimed that they came from an island. Wether this island was big or small is not stated. I have this note (concerning the size) from a german book about the migration period. But i am also not very pleased with that and therefor its good that you deleted it. Most historians, that follow the Langobard saga believe that "the Island" of the Langobards was infact a Peninsula of south west Sweden. That was naturally closed by the sea on 3 sides, therefor the Langobards claiming it to be an island.

Keep up the good work in the Gothic-related articles! ;-) - user:Doctor_Hesselius

Up for FAC. Thought you might be interested. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had not misrepresented the information from Encyclopædia Britianica, dispite the edit comment you had made. I have been told not to use information verbatim from copywritten sources, so used a river-to-river description (South end of the Netherlands is largely a river delta region, visited there last year, quite nice, I highly recommend it to anyone as a place to visit). Would there be a clear policy document on what is permitted? For example, if I was explaining about a flood that struck a city of 750,000 a few years back called Winnipeg in central North America for example, and the sources used the name of the city, I could not describe the flood as affecting the region surrounding the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine rivers)? I would just like to confirm to avoid any future critisisms.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that you had. For some time, I was in awe about the statement that according to Encyclopedia Britannica, the 750 BC Proto-Germanic region went from the Baltic sea down to the border of France (Meuse River), when I usually read that it was bordered by the Weser River and the Aller in the south around 600 BC. I simply had to verify if what you wrote about EB was true. I think that the entire country of the Netherlands is big difference between your version and EB's.--Berig 06:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad ;-) … I meant only the delta region and northeast from there of the Meuse River, not the length or the source of that river, because it is all the way in France (light-years from the North Sea and Baltic costal regions of Germanic inhabitation). France was Celtic at time. The source is relatively recent, but it only stated the Netherlands and not the river exiting their. I agree with you completely that it is best kept with the Netherlands, much clearer to the reader (less confusing as I was correctly shown). Please forgive me my err.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course in your edits. It is late, I am tired.

I hoped you wouldn't have Birka on your watchlist, knowing that you find Harrison controversial... But I couldn't find it better expressed in any other book of mine and right now I don't feel like looking through everything looking for a clue.... if you have better references, feel free to add them. I don't think what I wrote was incorrect though?

Fred-Chess 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have Birka on my watchlist, but it is sometimes interesting to follow Drieakko's work. BTW, I think that your quote from Harrison was a good addition.--Berig 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So you don't think I'm completely incompetent... :-)

Fred-Chess 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I absolutely don't :-).--Berig 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 4, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dísablót, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thankyou Berig for creating this interesting article. GeeJo kindly nominated it for DYK. The majority of entries are self-nom, so please don't be shy.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Started this page, thought you might be interested in helping out. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I have added a link to the page of Landnámabók, where he is mentioned.--Berig 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, it states its source? There is no references section, no book listed in which the information could be verified. Please see WP:V for verfiability requirements and WP:CITE for guidelines on how to cite an article. Frater Xyzzy 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by that statement. The article says

Huld was a völva in Scandinavian mythology. In Ynglingatal and Heimskringla is related that she first was hired to kill the Swedish king Vanlade, by his wife Drífa. She "hag-rode" him to death. Later she was hired by Vanlade's grand-children to kill his son Visbur.

This means that it cites Ynglingatal as a source. You need to explain why the article does not cite its sources.--Berig 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But it needs to have a references section, and list an edition of the book I buy or find at the library. An internal link is not sufficient. Please read the pages I pointed out. Frater Xyzzy 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I find your objection strange Xyzzy. Have you tried clicking on the Heimskringla article? By clicking one more time on Ynglinga saga, you will find that there are online translations of that work to consult, like this one: Ynglinga saga. This means that you don't need to go to the library. The sources are already there, online for you to verify from.--Berig 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand that. But WP:V requires every article to cite its sources. Relying on other Wikipedia articles which could change at any time is not a recognized method for citing sources. You need to copy the applicable sources to a references section in this article. Frater Xyzzy 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection is still not valid Xyzzy. You could bother to go to the library to read the Heimskringla.--Berig 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article does not have a references section it is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Period. End of discussion. Frater Xyzzy 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My last edits should address your concerns about the reliability of the article. There is no need to get upset over this, Frater Xyzzy. Now you don't even need to check the Heimskringla in the library.--Berig 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply overkill. Don't know why you are so hostile to my correct suggestions to improve the article. Now I don;t think the article should even exist and should be merged or simply deleted. Have a nice day. Frater Xyzzy 18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that the article did not cite its source. Now that it openly shows the source of information you accuse me of hostility and want the article removed. Please, calm down.--Berig 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly calm but don't understand why you can't simply add a list of references? Do you have some sort of problem with adding a simply list of citations? Frater Xyzzy 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, when it states the source on the first line and consisted of two or three lines? It seems quite strange when someone asks for sources in such an obvious statement about where the information comes from.--Berig 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a policy that there should be a references section. What's so hard to understand about that? Frater Xyzzy 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]