User talk:CorbieVreccan

Admins watch while you edit. We saw what you did there.

Veteran Editor II

This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.

Rouge-o-meter

Partially Cloudy

CAN'T RETIRE

CorbieVreccan tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that they couldn't do so…

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

This user is old enough to remember what a typewriter is, and that's all you need to know.

Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV.

This user knows too many people who are dead.

If you are new here, and feeling angry, please read Tips for the Angry New User before explaining to us how terribly wrong and messed up Wikipedia is. Would you believe, we probably already know? You can also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia culture via these policy links ->
and helpful essays ^^^

If you've been an admin for a while, and are feeling burnt out, take a step back and take some deep breaths, and don't forget to WP:CHILL

Axis Mundi Hill of Uisneach

Thanks for your interest in the article, however I'm curious why you removed the link to the Axis Mundi. I've since re-added the link. In your edit summary for the removal, am I to understand that you kept the reference I added but that you simply don't feel the A.Mundi page does justice to the mythology of Irish cosmology/origin story? What is it specifically about the A.Mundi page that you feel it overlooks?

I don't mind discussing this with you as I am genuinely interested in where it falls down.

As I wonder, why couldn't we fix the A.Mundi page if it is found lacking? Boundarylayer (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Because as I said in the edit summary, the Axis Mundi article is firmly rooted in non-Irish cosmology, and if relied on to explain the cosmology of the centre in Irish thought, will give a very misleading impression. Rewriting the Axis Mundi article to fit Irish cosmology would inappropriately change the Axis Mundi concept into something inaccurate. Better to leave it out of the lede. I think it's OK to link it lower in the body of the article, saying that it's simlar to an Axis Mundi concept, but only if the differences are noted. This is where the Rhys's as a source fall short, in their over-reliance on Vedic, rather than Irish, cosmology in that cite. I'm going to take it out of the lede. Let's not edit-war. If you want to discuss this further, please take it to the talk page of the article itself. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am persuaded by your argument, however I will be back to see if you follow-up with references that do justice to explaining the comparisons and contrasts, or at the least, show how it differs from the Axis Mundi.

Keep up the good work, and I genuinely look forward to reading this cited, explanatory paragraph that you will write.

All the best,

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Clootie well

Hi CorbieVreccan--long ago, when we were all innocent, you wrote up this article--great! I was led to it by way of the Dutch wiki, Koortsboom. (And this in turn because my mom sent me a newspaper article about one such tree in the Netherlands.) So I'm doubting the crosswikilink a bit but I can't really figure out what to do. First of all, the Dutch article doesn't talk about a well, and I don't think that for the Dutch the well is an essential element. So one option is to write "Koortsboom", but then, "Fever tree" doesn't seem to mean anything of the kind in English. In addition, the Dutch article (which has terrible sourcing, of course) lists all kinds of other tantalizing variation--a "nail tree", where people drive nails into a tree to ask for health; a "quarter tree", where they nail quarters to a tree (apparently a Belgian thing, see French article; and the "Children's tree", from which the stork plucks the souls of unborn children. What do you think? I'd be inclined to write each one of those, but the Dutch articles are so poorly referenced that I'm almost embarrassed to translate them. I also wonder about our coverage of sacred trees (I've done some work on the Donar Oak and wrote up Goethe Oak a long time ago), and I think we can probably do with a navigational project. And a WikiProject! so that our knowledge may find root and spread its tendrils across the universe... Drmies (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Eh...so I never heard of you or ran into you, I think, until this morning--but look at one of my edits from last night, and the edit summary. Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stalker here ... I'm helping work on Sacred trees and groves in Germanic paganism and mythology, and I wonder whether you both know about the Stock im Eisen? The history section there draws on some sources for the nail tradition. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's this mess of an article: Celtic sacred trees, which I did some cleanup on, but haven't had time to fully rehabilitate. I know there are some other sad orphans around that cover some of these tree-related things as well. Wish Tree covers some of the coins hammered into trees in Scotland, Ireland and England. I think nails are sometimes found in those areas, but less frequently if at all (if so, it's actually contraindicated in the lore, so probably an import). I've never been keen on the coins and nails thing, as it's resulted in killing the trees, and the Fairy Faith lore says it actually drives away nature spirits, so I think it's probably a more recent folk tradition. I'm a bit busy right now, but will try to look more deeply into the Germanic stuff.

@Drmies: The edit from last night... we have OR that garbage trucks of unknown provenance were seen dumping there before the news crew arrived. Not the first time things like that have been staged, and not the first time that news station has fallen for it or accepted a biased press release as truth without bothering to contact the other side for a comment. Right now there's an attempt to get some nonbiased, RS coverage on that. Right now we only have online statements from people in camp, but I'm sure by later today some of them will have given WP:V & RS statements to the press. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was pointing at the fact that I reverted to your edit, and here I am on your talk page for a completely unrelated thing. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Dan Davies

Hey Corbie,

Thanks for your edits to the Dan Davies page. Although I am not sure what you mean by "not a reliable source"...per example his ethnicity is as stated and is inherent in the noted article via the reference in the San Francisco Chronicle. Also I am an idiot on the exact templating needed for the references...any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

Warmest, ShannonJosephDoyle

I read the article linked as the source, then did a text search. Ethnicity is not mentioned, nor are the words "Seneca" or "Iroquois." Also, it takes more evidence than a mention in an interview. Is he enrolled? If so, where? Look over the links I posted on your talk page about how we evaluate sources, and look at Wikipedia articles that are featured articles, where the sources are formatted like in a book report or journalistic article. That is how we do them here, rather than just pasting in bare links. I haven't had a chance to go through all the text and sourcing yet, but those were a few things that jumped out, due to your adding him to pages where we only add enrolled tribal members. Please take the stuff on your talk page seriously, as edit-warring will get you blocked. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to... Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red
		March 2017 Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met" Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Editing

Hello, Corbie!

Thank you for your welcome message about my recent edits to the page for Richard Erdoes. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and was unaware that editing a family members page is discouraged. Richard Erdoes was my father, and I was just correcting a few details and adding some basic info. Is that a problem?

Specifically, the article originally gave two birthplaces from two different sources. I removed the incorrect info, but I don't know if the source info needs to be changed. There is a citation for the correct birthplace already.

I also added more info about my father's career as an illustrator, and his listed occupations. He never considered himself a journalist, so I removed that. Frankly, I am not sure how to add citations for the many magazines for which he created illustrations. I know them because I have been going through some of his work.

Am I not allowed to edit this page, since I am his daughter? I had thought to add more titles of the books he wrote and illustrated, which can easily be sourced and verified.

Also, may I add a photo, and how do I do that?

Thank you,

Jerdoes (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)