User talk:Berig/Archive 11 (January 5, 2021 - April 6, 2021)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ingvar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salme.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Södermanland runic inscription 140

On 15 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Södermanland runic inscription 140, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Södermanland runic inscription 140 has a runic cross that is either a pagan invocation of the Norse god Thor or one of the earliest mentions of Sweden? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Södermanland runic inscription 140. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Södermanland runic inscription 140), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A DYK on Wikipedia's 20th birthday! Thanks @Casliber:!--Berig (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The siþi Þur bindrune! I am intrigued by the new interpretation; I'd considered they might be Hälsinge runes. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Strängnäs stone

Hello! Your submission of Strängnäs stone at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Magnus I of Sweden

I'm sorry to have to say that you have not done well in disregarding the talk page and making a move which is far from non-controversial. Please reverse the move and discuss first! In any case Magnus the Strong is a rather silly epithet which that man never used. Its use has been widely criticized. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I did not read the talkpage before I made the move. Now I see that you were two editors who were in agreement about the name. However, it does not matter if many editors are in agreement if the name is incorrect. He was a Geatish counter-king and was never elected king of Sweden.--Berig (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not know that for certain. He might have been. It has been debated by scholars for hundreds of years. You and I cannot decide it. The Swedish Royal Court counts him as the first King Magnus. Tradition on English Wikipedia is to number kings for clarity whenever the slightest bit motivated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So far it looks like you consider yourself to be the one who decides. On Swedish WP, they call him "Magnus Nilsson" and Icelandic, Norwegian and Danish WP have named him "Magnus the Strong". I don't understand why you insist on such an odd name.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, as is stated by a third editor on the talkpage, you want the article to have your own made-up name.--Berig (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"it does not matter if many editors are in agreement if the name is incorrect." reveals a disregard for consensus and Wikipedia moves policy that makes this useless to discuss. "the one who decides" - seems obvious who that is when someone disregards talk page use and just goes ahead and name-changes an article on h own. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed incorrect being in violation of WP:NAME. I am only enforcing Wikipedia policy here. Instead of coming here to vent your dissatisfaction, you should address the points raised on the talkpage.--Berig (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

To the user on the user's talk page where this belongs: "it does not matter if many editors are in agreement if the name is incorrect." reveals a serious disregard for consensus and Wikipedia moves policy. "the one who decides" - seems obvious who that is, when someone disregards talk page use and just goes ahead and name-changes an article on h own. If you are unwilling to face these serious errors of yours, what's the use of discussing anything, anywhere, with you? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you vent your frustration here? Several editors in good standing support my move on the talkpage, citing WP:COMMONNAME, and you ignore it. Go to the talkpage and explain yourself. This is increasingly looking like trolling.--Berig (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

When another editor does something objectionable, the right place to bring that up, first, is that editor's talk page. That is not trolling, but your alluding to it being that is a personal attack. The move you made is OK, as I now have conceded. The way you did it is absolutely not OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for conceding that my move was correct.--Berig (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please do not do any move that way again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that even if there will be a two editor consensus on a problematic name in a talkpage, I will do what I can to make it comply with Wikipedia policy.--Berig (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

By discussing first, we must assume - we who adhere to that important policy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

True, but I don't understand how the end result could possibly have been different. Moreover, there is nothing wrong in being bold when things are obviously amiss. BTW, what are your intentions here? I started the discussion on the talkpage with apologizing, and here you still are.--Berig (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You invalidated your apology immediately with "The name struck me as so singulary odd that I could not possibly imagine that it had been suggested and discussed by two editors on the talkpage". Aside from superciliously alluding to other editors as somehow nutty, that's no excuse on the actual issue. WP's main guideline's are not open to interpretation by bold editors who cannot possibly imagine this, that or the other. We all have to adhere to such guidelines and abstain from trying to justify any and all disregard for them. An alternate name sanctioned by professional historians, and a nomenclature positioning published in a line of its kings by the Swedish government is not "singularly odd". You have continually and consistently made excuses for arbitrarily doing a move against clear policy. As long as you go on doing that, the rest of us naturally have to worry that is very likely you'll do it again. Will you? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the name is singularly odd, but that is an opinion I am entitled to have. Moreover, there is only one editor so far who has contested the move, and he has conceded it was the right thing to do. There was nothing arbritary in the move as other editors have explained to you, and it was in accordance to WP policy, although, I admit that I forgot to check the talkpage. If I have hurt you in any way, I sincerely apologize for that.--Berig (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opinions on oddities are not relevant when they can be, and have been, so clearly proven wrong, and they certainly do not excuse what you did. It shocked me. The results of the move are OK now that consensus is clear. Nobody (nobody) has agreed with (all) your (excuses for) doing that move without discussion first. You have not hurt me. You are hurting the project, as an experienced editor, by not clearly stating that you will not do any moves in that way again. You now replied "Yes" not to the important question I asked but to something else of your own concoction. With continued obvious slipperiness like that, how are we supposed to trust you? Do you really not care? Will you go on trying to excuse doing more moves without discussing first, where there have been previous decided moves after discussion on those talk pages? It's a simple question, really. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will not move anything without checking the talkpage first and see if there is a discussion about the name. Thank you for your constructive feedback, and don't hesitate to contact me if I can help you in any way :-).--Berig (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I've been hoping for from you. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Interpretatio slavica

Ready. Noraskulk (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

Very interesting! There may be editors who question the name, though, because some of them are scholarly comparisons and may not correspond to identifications made during pagan times. I will not because the name was my suggestion. Anyway, it is very interesting, and I am very grateful for the scholarly treatment of Veles-Freyr, and Perun-Thor, which is exactly what I was hoping for.--Berig (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Gaudi9223

Gaudi9223 seems to only make edits that remove/distort text with the misleading edit summaries "Grammar" "Sources" or "Grammar/Sources". Any action to be taken?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:, I will update myself on relevant policies tomorrow, have a look at his activities, and see what I can do.--Berig (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like I was somewhat over hasty in characterizing his edits, but the most recent all seem to be like that (maybe not deliberately?).—Ermenrich (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: he seems to edit only rarely, and in good faith. I will put a reminder and a link to Help:Edit summary on his talkpage.--Berig (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, I see now that you already done it.--Berig (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Zeta Psi

Hello, I hope this finds you well. I see you locked the page Zeta Psi however the persistence of one editor continues to spread false information that is not properly cited and is not in line with the organization's information and yet there is no way to edit the page. Can you help in promoting true information on this page? Thank you so much - Best User 103214

I suggest you submit a request to have it unprotected. That way another admin may give a second look.--Berig (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, Thank you so much for your help. how long does that take? - User103214

I depends, only a few days at the most.--Berig (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! And you are unable to revert it? - User103214

My only interest is to make the article stable. Use the talkpage, and get an account :-).--Berig (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Clinton–Lewinsky scandal

Hi and thanks for your help on Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. I noticed, however, that you put in a ten day semi-protection after the previous protection of one year expired just yesterday before the heavy vandalism resumed. The page has been a consistent vandalism target for a long time despite multiple protections. Have you taken a look at the page's protection history and would you please consider making the semi-protection longer? Jeremian (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeremian:, OK. You're right. Only checked the most recent protections to get an idea of the protection history. I have extended the protection for another year.--Berig (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Berig: I have a questions but posted it today. Why there are pp-pc in the page indicating that the page has pending changes protection even the page is semi-protected for year? I believe you was mistaken for page protection. So why not extending pending changes protection indefinitely after semi expired or removing pp-pc altogether. 110.137.165.39 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The pp-pc protection was enforced by another admin. You should ask them about it.--Berig (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Only vandalism IP

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:4060:119:62A9:BCE3:4869:26E1:8995 This IP is only editing for vandalism purpose. Please take action. Thankyou Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

He seems to have calmed down after your message on his talkpage. I will keep an eye on him.--Berig (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

He can't help himself, so I have given him a 31h timeout.--Berig (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Kalbajar District

Hi Berig, You placed an temp edit block on Kalbajar District citing vandalism and disruptive editing. I'm assuming you're referring to my recent additions. Unfortunately your block was timed after Curiousgolden and Solavirum, both known Azerbaijan-POV pushing editors, repeatedly reverted my edits which only add info (you'll notice I haven't removed their controversial 1999 census data, even if many argue that it goes against the consensus of using only actual census-driven demographic data for all Armenia-Azerbaijan articles which present demographic data). I have pedigree reaching and protecting a hard-achieved consensus on this article (and other), and they are profiting from the Armenian loss of the war to completely remove all Armenian demographic info from that page, and effectively perform cultural genocide (which Wikipedia should by no means condone, else it becomes party to it). Your edit restrictions has therefore prevented me and others from adding objective, NPOV, and well sourced/cited information which is based on actual census data (whereas the 1999 pro-Azeri POV-pushing data that's there now is self-admittedly not even based on an actual census being performed in that region since it was under Armenian control), and it actually creates a one-sides Azeri-POV view on the geographic region because you've basically frozen their edit-warring outcome. I have initiated good faith discussions on the Talk page before you block, but CuriousGolden and Solavirum both fail to provide any adequate explanations for their senseless reverts, so please reconsider your block so that I can bring the article back towards consensus, and we can contribute to a more neutral set of demographic data. If you're not convinced, let's get some arbitration since i'm confident my justification on the Talk page is fairly clear. Thank you! HyeProfile (T·C) 15:23, 3 February 2021

@HyeProfile:, I only remember semi-protecting it, which I wrote here. I see that I protected it three times, so something must have gone wrong. I have changed its protection, now, and make a note to myself to double-check my protections. Good luck editing.--Berig (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Fraternities project

Hi Berig. I see you joined the Fraternities and Sororities Project. Welcome. If I can help in any way, let me know. I've lately been cleaning up the metadata for the project itself, adding a substantial number of societies to the project's watchlist. This will make it easier for new editors to engage in a meaningful way. Well, I hope so.

Anyway, you see to be an experienced editor. There is a buzz of activity going on regarding the Zeta Psi page, where some users are adding a "public" motto, and others are deleting it. I have stayed out of this one, as I don't know what is the preferred usage of the fraternity. But I mention it, as you had previously worked on that page. A member? Jax MN (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jax MN: I am still rather new in the Brotherhood, but I plan on writing some articles with public information. ATM, I am in the middle of writing on medieval matters, but I will get active writing on fraternities soon.--Berig (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jax MN: Self-correction. I really shouldn't answer messages early in the morning before going to work and before my brain has started working. By me being a member of a fraternity, thought you referred to the Freemasons that I mention on my user page. The only activity I have done on Zeta Psi is semi-protecting it.--Berig (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Harald Fairhair

Our article Harald Fairhair currently claims that most scholars no longer believe such a person existed. You're better aware of scholarship on Scandinavian history than I am - is this actually the scholarly consensus? When I search Harald Fairhair (in English at least) at JSTOR or Google Scholar, I'm not finding anyone who says he didn't exist, at least not immediately. I've recently been reading about Christ myth theory and Mohammed denialism, so I'm naturally a bit suspicious of "so-and-so didn't exist" kinds of theories.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not surprised. The old Scandinavian hypercritical school is alive and well again, with scholars like Krag (Norway), Christensen (Denmark) and Harrison (Sweden). It goes in waves. You'd expect the post-modernist era to usher in a greater variety of interpretations, but instead the modern discourse in Scandinavian historiography has decided that medieval sources only represent their own time period. So the kings' sagas only tell what 12th and 13th c. Icelanders believed about the Scandinavian past. The Skaldic poetry is held to be more conservative and more reliable, due to the preserving nature of alliteration. However, in spite of linguistic evidence that for instance Ynglingatal really dates to c. 900, there is debate as you can see in the article. Skaldic poetry is also often allusive and metaphorical and open to interpretation.--Berig (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting - and sort of unfortunate. Do you have any sense if the consensus is quite a lopsided in favor of non-existence as the article portrays?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would not say that the article outright denies his existence. Like several Scandinavian historians, it is just agnostic about it.--Berig (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Rus' people#Assimilation#Urban

Emmerich, you can take offense at me as much as you want, but I will ask you to change the text under the image of Olga, because this is complete nonsense. Wikipedia is no place for marginal theories. How can a girl from a Russian family, born in Pskov know Old Swedish? Noraskulk (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is Berig’s page and I’m not sure why you think I added these things to the article. The point is that they are sourced.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Noraskulk:, assume that you are addressing me, here. I never ever take offense at you :-). Thank you for bringing Olga up, and I have just looked into Judith Jesch' book Women in the Viking Age (1991), where she dedicates several pages to Helga (Olga), in a section she calls "Olga, Viking Princess, and Russian Saint" (p. 111ff). Summarizing what she writes, it appears that there has never been any evidence that Olga was Slavic, but her name was the Norse name Helga, and there is an old manuscript that says that her parents spoke Old Norse (the "Varangian tongue"). Jesch also comments that her ethnicity has been debated, but she wrote it in 1991, and we have to assume that she refers to Soviet Anti-Normanism, which as you know did not really need any objective evidence to question "foreign" and western influence in early Russian history. It was important to be correct politically. There is a consensus here on Wikipedia not to give undue weight to Anti-Normanism, so I don't see any real problem with the phrasing as it stands. As Elena Melnikova writes in the reference to the section, Helga/Olga and her class in Kievan Rus' was turning bilingual when she lived.--Berig (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Noraskulk (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC).

Thank you

Your latest edit to this page brought the Hårby Valkyrie to my attention (I just embarrassed myself by editing in Danish and German; I am not a linguist and can read far more than I can write). That's the same size as the various pouch statuettes, and "heavily" gilded silver, with traces of polychrome? Has anybody made the obvious suggestion she's a goddess? Surely assuming a statuette of a shieldmaid must be a valkyrie is more of the old stereotyping of the Norse goddesses as "fertility" figures. There are a lot we don't know about, Þorgerðr hǫlgabrúðr and Irpa came immediately to mind but most academics treat them as valkyries, and the location makes me think of Gefjon. Anyway, thanks, and somebody should create an English article. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

And like an idiot I somehow missed that you had created The Valkyrie from Hårby last year :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope you like it :-)--Berig (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course I do :-) But by now there should surely be academic articles arguing she's Skaði. An archaeologist immediately suggested the Odin from Lejre was Freyja, despite the two birds (lamellar armour being read as Brisingamen). I doubt this is Freyja, I would expect a boar helm (Sýr). And not being on a throne is an issue, but of course the Freyja pendant isn't enthroned. But beyond that, I wonder how many of these are going to be found? In Iceland they still argue that the Eyrarland figurine might be Jesus, or a chess king. But at some point, as with the gullgubbar, it becomes a class of objects to take seriously for implications. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

A fast search starting with English brought to my attention that there's a hole through the hair-do, so this is a pendant, which may explain the standing posture. Here's the same archaeologist (who edits here, though I forget his user name, I'm still having my coffee :-)) Then I found a site referring to Revninge woman; Google images led me to this, from which I found the Danish Wikipedia entry, and here's the archived version of the Ladby Viking Museum's announcement (the museum is mentioned here on en.wiki at Ladby ship). That was found in 2014, also on Fyn, and is also silver-gilt and also a standing female figure presumably intended as a pendant, but the head is three-dimensional and the body is not; the necklace made people think at first of Freyja. Her head is in a bun, which I believe is also unusual, but that may be because she's only two-dimensional from the neck down. (To be completely inappropriate here, as a long-haired woman and having spent hours this winter staring at images of the rock carvings, I wonder whether we know how the hair was held in those long ponytails; was it knotted or were there implements used to hold it at the nape of the neck? Anyway, are there any other figurines I should know about (and that we should have on English Wikipedia?) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC) (Here we go on the hair :-) ) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

How to make a Viking Age poney tail.

Yes, @Yngvadottir:, as soon as they find a figurine, the imagination goes wild and unless it is obviously a man or a woman, the gender is contested. Still, when people wear pendants today, crosses, David's stars, thor's hammers, and so on, they are worn because they have a deep personal significance. These figurines must have had a deep spiritual significance to those who wore them, so my bet is on various Dísir, or gods. You probably know about the Hagebyhöga Freyja pendant, already. I am thinking of writing an article on the Revninge woman, using the Danish sources, now. As for the pony tails of Viking Age women, there is the Tjängvide image stone that can be called a "DIY visual instruction". :-).--Berig (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that close-up, yes, you're right :-) That also shows the hair is actually knotted (like a friend of mine from Kerala used to do). Either that or it's the interlace style :-) Yes, see above about the Freyja pendant also being standing. I suppose it's possible they were not worn around the neck but looped onto something else, but with all the recovered Mjǫllnir pendants, it seems a safe bet that they wore pendants. Now I hope we can find more, including outside Fyn, as with the gullgubbar, which exploded out of post holes once archaeological techniques improved and they were discernible. Do you think the Baltic islands were hot-spots for gold and silver items, or that it's an accident of preservation? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Gotland is such a hotspot because they focused on trade. The free farmers of Gotland were farmen ("faring men") who according to the Gutasaga paid a token tribute to the king of Sweden in exchange for military protection and the right to trade wherever people paid tribute to him (which appears to have included Kievan Rus'). The wall around Visby on Gotland was built to protect the Hansa merchant from these rich farmers who were furious that Germans were taking over their lucrative trade.--Berig (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Strängnäs stone

On 14 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Strängnäs stone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Strängnäs stone (pictured), long considered a forgery, is probably authentic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Strängnäs stone. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Strängnäs stone), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Incredible referencing and writing, thank you for your hard work. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! :-)--Berig (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Germanic Heroic Legend

I'm putting together at least a stub on this topic in my sand box if you would like to contribute any User:Ermenrich/sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Good start, @Ermenrich:! I will absolutely see if I can make a few edits and/or additions!--Berig (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the Strängnäs stone drew 30,330 page views (1,264 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the second most viewed hook so far during the month of February and has earned a place near the top of the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! :-)--Berig (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding semi-protection of my talk page

Hello, you had temporarily semi-protected my talk page after reviewing my request at the WP:RFPP. The LTAs have returned over the past week with multiple accounts and even though they have failed to edit my talk page, they have resorted to create attack pages to harass and get attention. They also copied contents from my userpage and pasted them on their userpage to impersonate me, following which admin LuK3 semi-protected it. Since the protection expires later today, I'm asking if an extension is justified/possible in this scenario? Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ashleyyoursmile, of course! Have you brought this harassment to the attention of WP:ANI?--Berig (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PS, I have protected it for a full month from now on.--Berig (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PPS, Ashleyyoursmile, I was about to go medieval on them, but they seem to be blocked already.--Berig (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Berig, thank you very much for extending the protection. Whenever they return with a new account, I report them directly to the WP:AIV or to an admin, and request an immediate block. Since they do this for attention, I try to not engage with them as much as possible. Again, thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, it is my pleasure! You can ask me anytime you need assistance.--Berig (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gridley, California

Hi there. I see you protected Gridley, California. I tried to fix some of the vandalism on the article, but it needs to be rolled way back to a previous version. If I do that, I'm not sure if it will wipe out the protection template you added. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, it is fixed now.--Berig (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Being nosy

Please do consider rewriting Proto-Germanic language :-)

I wound up editing Elder Futhark myself, hopefully correctly, after noticing that we were defining runic Þ as pronounced like Greek θ, which I found both uninformative and ambiguous. That led me to check the PGmc article, where as I suspected, the possible existence of Ð pronunciation was mentioned. Are we sure that Elder runic Þ always represents the unvoiced sound? Probably we are; I am one of the world's worst philologists. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, this is why I sometimes want to rewrite the reconstructions! Þ was pronounced Ð in intervocalic position, so East Norse maþer ("man") probably sounded like West Norse maðr, exept for the nominative case marker -er/r. The speakers of Old East Norse always seem to have wanted that case marker to begin with an e in writing. :-).--Berig (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Aha, so that was already the case. I didn't think I'd seen any instances of ᛞ where I would expect ð in standardized ON, but I am extremely ignorant about these things, and so much is in Younger. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a case of allophony, just like t is pronounced differently in American English in take and letter.--Berig (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(After trying and failing to come up with a contrastive pair for the voiced and unvoiced th in English; they can begin words with the same following vowels, so in theory there should be one, but I think many may be recent loanwords; oh, I can't do this ...) So that hasn't changed, so shouldn't we be giving both voiced and unvoiced as values of Þurisaz in the text—I see we have both in the table—and for that matter for Fehu in the table? I get it about transliteration though, since they did use the same rune-stave. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely!--Berig (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Goths and stuff

Berig, as promised on Goths here is a personal note about me and the Goths article. I hope it helps. Please take it in good faith. My apologies for the length!

• The primary character of my work on Goths has been source checking. I like working on articles which have difficulties because of disciplines crossing over, and regionally different ideas. In early days on Wikipedia I started doing such work occasionally when I noticed how bad the population genetics articles were. Honestly, a lot of Wikipedians can not parse a basic academic text. What I do is work hard to find the best sources, which are often not controversial to identify, and find out what they really said.
• I had no prior "position" about Gothic origins, although I have always been interested in the topic in a general way. Just as example, I lashed out on Peter Green's book back when I was in University. I still treasure it, and pull it out regularly. As mentioned already, I own several of the most cited texts on Goths.
• A quick summary of my findings concerning Goths: there does not seem to be much controversy about who the international experts are, but because of problems in Wikipedia, there has been major disagreement about what they say. They don't all agree, but almost all of them believe that a Scandinavian immigration, at least a simple one (a single population, moving from one place to another) is not proven, and they almost all seem to agree Jordanes is still the only reason anyone would propose Scandinavia in any strong way. The problem then, many of them say, is that the interest of Jordanes in linking Scandinavia into the story might have had other causes. This is what they say, not me.
• What do I think? At least the scholars do not sound completely unreasonable to my "common sense" because the Jastorf area is an equally likely place for a Germanic speaking group to have spread from. (No one is arguing that Scandinavia is not an option.) The archaeological evidence also seems to show connections in that direction as well as I understand it, although perhaps the differences between Peninsular Scandinavian or Jastorf influence would not be so easy to detect.
• In any case, even if we can't yet publish new findings from somewhere, such as concerning that frieze, I am personally interested to know about them. But to repeat: on this article I've been concerned mainly with correcting wrong reports of what the most important sources say. Being more ambitious than that seems unrealistic for now for me.
• You can look up on the talk page archives what I think of the attempts to claim there is genetic evidence. The citations made so far were OR, using minor isolated reports, and twisting the words out of context. Hopefully there will be better research in the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL, Peter Green is a guitar legend of course. I must need more music in my life.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I believe in Wikipedia, and I believe that editors should be able to work together and finally accept a relatively balanced version of any article. However, it is not for you, nor for me, to determine and state what "academic consensus" is from our own research, is if such a thing as consensus exists in this case. That is for our sources to do, per WP:RS/AC.--Berig (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy (band)

Hello, sorry to bother you. I had requested semi-protection on the page assuming the accounts were not auto-confirmed. But that's not the case and this user is the supposedly the owner of the band with the same name. They are trying to write a page on their band and are continuing to hijack the article. I have explained to them about WP:COI and that they should read WP:AFC if they wish to write about their band, although not directly, and have referred them to the WP:TEAHOUSE as I'm unsure how to guide them further. Can you please look into it? Apologies for any inconvenience. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnstars

Hi Berig! If I like a user's contribution, do I have the right to award them some kind of reward (barnstar)? Noraskulk (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Noraskulk:, of course you have the right! I think everyone appreciates a barnstar. There are many differerent kinds to choose from. Personally, I prefer making them unique for each editor.--Berig (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Noraskulk (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC).

Page protection for Religion in Russia

Hi Berig, would you mind page protecting Religion in Russia? IPs keep making unsourced changes to the census numbers.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have semi-protected it for one week.--Berig (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, this protection was rather uncontroversial, but unless done on user pages or talk pages, I think protection requests should be done formally through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection :-).--Berig (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there was someplace to make requests like that, but I couldn't remember where!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)