Talk:High Icelandic

message: Some sources? --feydey 00:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This whole edifice is basically the construct of one man: Jozef Van Tongerloo. It has received some attention in Iceland and is sort of interesting in its own right and as a sort of reductio ad absurdum of language purism. I would vote to keep it on AfD but it needs to be rewritten to make clear what it really is. I'm slapping an NPOV tag on it for the time being. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version doesn't really deserve a NPOV, since it now incorporates additions from the author in a surprisingly moderate language. I'd say let the article be as is, unless someone objects to the somewhat excessive use of pictures. Readers may have their own opinion, and this reader certainly has, but as the article stands, it is a relatively fair description of Braekmans' creation, and I agree with Haukur that the phenomenon has a certain interest in itself. That High Icelandic will never catch on is, I think, beyond question. Cheers Io 19:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that we don't need the NPOV tag anymore (it has already been removed) and the use of pictures is excessive but that is not terrible at all. Also, I removed it from the category Languages of Iceland as it is not spoken by a single person there. Category:Languages of Belgium would be much better suited although I am certainly not going to make that change :) Stefán Ingi 21:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the author doesn't speak it himself, so Languages of Belgium would also be inappropriate. :) Io 16:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it probably does fit under the rubric of a conlang...  TomerTALK 02:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree that the text of the article is not neutral, it describes the project and does not hide the fact that it, and its creator, is unpopular with many people. I would like to see that NPOV tag removed. If anybody thinks its a vanity article then it should be nominated for deletion. I, for one, would oppose its deletion. Stefán Ingi 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/Category

message: I'm putting the NPOV tag back on this page, mainly because it is a vanity page. It is about a creation of its sole contributor.  The text also plays up the subject as more relevant than it really is.  Frankly I also disagree with removing  it in the first place, the page was far from neutral at the time the tag was removed. --Sindri 12:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the text of the article is not neutral, it describes the project and does not hide the fact that it, and its creator, is unpopular with many people. I would like to see that NPOV tag removed. If anybody thinks its a vanity article then it should be nominated for deletion. I, for one, would oppose its deletion. Stefán Ingi 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity page 

message: I went through and wikified about half the article.  I may get back to it some more later.  Meanwhile, someone else might ought could take a look at doing the oder haff?  TomerTALK 02:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification

message: This article really needs to cite some Usenet posts, this language is largely a Usenet phenomena, when was it first mentioned on Usenet, some highlights from the posts at is.islenska etc. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet 

message: This article IS indeed a vanity. It is translated to all wikipedia's, by a few IP's in Belgium in a few days time, or by registered users (sockpuppets).
On de dutch wiki, the article is nominated for deletion, and indeed, two users tried to convince us of the importance of the article, by claiming the popularity of the subject... It are however newly registered sockpuppet users, which does indeed make it seems like manipulation and vanity...
If you read Dutch, here the article is nominated for Deletion :nl:Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina%27s/Toegevoegd_20060223#Toegevoegd_23.2F02:_Deel_1, :nl:Gebruiker:Maximiliaan en :nl:Gebruiker:Deruyterm are two sockpuppets as you can see by their edits  and  .
If fear this is just manipulation of a marginal subject and hobby project on different wiki's on the same time --LimoWreck 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an one-man project vanity page. This man is trying the same thig at different wiki's referring to other wiki's. on the dutch wiki we had him to. He's using unfair methods, such as sockpuppets and media attention that is at least unclear. My advice? Remove. Migdejong 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity Page 

message: Ahoy. I think a few things have to be said regarding the conservative nature of this article after "NPOV" modifications by LimoWreck and others. That is to say, instead of modifying towards a neutral point of view from an overly positive one, the article has been shifted over to the other side of the spectrum leaving it decisively negative towards the language, viz. sentances in the liking to "[...] most of which have failed to gain acceptance by the general public and were in danger of being lost." I believe that the mission of Wikipedia is to report the truth in a neutral way, but that is not being done at the moment. Twice the article states that the language has no official standing, and downplays the media attention it has recieved. I shall make the appropriate changes, moving towards a less political and opinionated and more scientific view on the subject matter. I'm glad those ghastly pictures are gone though. Furthermore, I have been in e-mail contact with Jef Braekmans, and he agreed to discontinue all further editing of the article, which I expect him to comply with. Furthermore, Jef, please note that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Dutch one. Making empty threats in Dutch is not any better tolerated than threats of any nature in any language. Please be civil! --Smári McCarthy 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that "most of which have failed to gain acceptance by the general public and were in danger of being lost." sentence was added in before, before I made any edits.... should check the history how it got in there. I just re-added that unofficial part before I saw your comment here, sorry, it was just a section in the "history" of the language, showing it's current status, attention and activities... let's see how that could be reworded --LimoWreck 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that we're getting there. I noticed that the bit about media attention is repeated; I recommend removing it from the "one man project" section and moving it to the "praise" section entirely. I got an e-mail from Jef just a moment ago in which he said: Dear Smári, I'm very happy.  It is OK like this. Best Regards, Jef. Although keeping Jef happy is in no way our purpose, it can't be a bad side effect. --Smári McCarthy 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, d*mn, I hadn't even noticed that new "praise" section either... well "praise" is a bit a strange word... perhaps "media" or so would cover it better. And agree, the details about media attention (including the ref's / notes I tried to add) should be moved over there... In the section about the evolution of project, one sentence mentioning the media attention should suffice indeed) --LimoWreck 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shifting 

message: Omitting the part about High Icelanidic symbolism is beheading the article.  The symbolism is as important as the language.  High Icelandic is a both a language variant and concepta art on the subject of linguistic purism.  This artform is based upon these four symbols.  It's like writing an article about Paris without mentioning the eiffeltower. That's no neutrality!  If that important paragraph about the symbolism is rejected I can't keep my promise to stop further editing.  This is inacceptable!!  Sindri Traustason is enjoying this extremely much.  If he can hurt me he is all ears!  He has certainly been having some intresting conversations with the crusaders Limowreck and Migdejong.  Sindri Traustason is luitenant in the anti-icelandic forces of General Algjör Bjáni: a.bjani@complex.is , the prime mother-tongue hater of Iceland.
:Jef. Stop it. You're not making any sense. Look at the revised version, in which I aimed at neutrality. And stop posting anonymously. Sign your edits by typing --~~~~ at the end. Edit your preferences (the "my preferences" button at the top right when you're logged in) and put your right name in the appropriate field. --Smári McCarthy 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. You weren't supposed to include the "nowiki" tags. Just two dashes and four tildes. You can also click the third button from the right on the button bar at the top of the editor. --Smári McCarthy 12:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: symbolism

message: Isn't it time to remove the "Neutrality disputed" tag from this article? The article has shrunk to proper proportions, and the original fanaticism of the author has visibly softented. Do we need an admin to remove the tag? If so, please do. Cheers Io 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: As it happens, regular users can remove tags. I removed the NPOV tag from this article. Shoot me or reinsert it if you must. :) And, to make it clear I am Io 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone will object to removing the tag now. The article has been totally rewritten. --Sindri 20:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed NPOV tag

message: It is a familiar motif in Icelandic folklore, where one can destroy trolls, giants, etc., by finding where their "life-egg" 
It is not unique to Icelandic folklore. Finding antagonist's life-egg in order to destroy it is the most popular motif in Russian folklore. Netrat (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  life-egg 

message: Most of the sources have died. That is one of the problems with using internet sites as sources. 85.178.190.250 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are references, they can stay whether they're dead or not. If they are in the external links section, dead links should be removed IMO. —IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu? 19:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources dead

message: 'Ultrapurism'? Removing any possibly foreign origined words? The whole thing have a far-right crazy feel, honestly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.21.122 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, sounds based. Supevan (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole thing is eery