This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Norse history and culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts: Public art This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts This article is supported by the public art task force.

Hi @Skyerise:, thanks for your edit. I wanted to provide some context for my suggestion regarding the image caption.

Currently, it reads: "Detail showing a Norse god on skis"

I propose changing it to: "Detail possibly depicting a Norse god on skis"

Reasoning: 1. Consistency with Article Text:

In the Description section of the article, it states: "The man carrying a bow and on skis is typically identified as Ullr" The use of "typically" acknowledges uncertainty, which the current image caption overlooks. Using "possibly depicting" aligns the caption with the text.

2. Consistency Across Wikipedia:

The Ullr article uses the same image with the caption: "Figure on skis and with a bow, possibly Ullr, on the 11th-century Böksta Runestone"

The Swedish Wikipedia describes it as: "Detalj som troligen visar jaktguden Ull med pil och båge på skidor" (Detail that probably shows the hunting god Ullr with a bow and on skis)

3. Interpretive Debate – Ullr vs Other:

While Ullr is the most common identification due to his association with skiing, archery, and hunting, the image's meaning remains open to interpretation.

Arguments for Ullr:

• The region where the runestone stands had a historical cult of Ullr, as seen in place names like Ulleråker.
• Ullr is associated with skiing, bows, and hunting, aligning with the imagery.
• Saxo Grammaticus (Gesta Danorum) mentions Ullr (as Ollerus) as a god of equal standing to Odin, even stating that Ullr temporarily took Odin’s place for 10 years in Denmark. This suggests:

1. Ullr was considered significant enough to interact with Odin. 2. It hints at a possible rivalry between the two gods.

• Gods usally interact with other gods in the edda storys. Thus if it was Odin, it would be Ullr. It can not be Skaði as the ski figure has a beard, which means it should be a male god.

Arguments Against Definitively Identifying Ullr:

• The scene appears to depict a hunt, but it is unclear whether the two figures are hunting together as allies or competing against each other to be the first to hunt a single target. This ambiguity complicates efforts to definitively identify the characters.
• No textual source directly links Ullr or Odin to the specific imagery of the runestone. There are no surviving sources that describe Odin interacting with a skier carrying a bow, nor do we have myths about Ullr in such a specific scene.
• Due to the lack of a specific myth, the image can be easily misinterpreted. For example, if we didn’t know about Thor’s fishing trip with Jörmungandr, we might interpret the Gosforth Cross depiction of Thor fishing as showing Thor alongside another god (such as Loki). However, we know that the other figure is not a god but the jötunn Hymir. It’s easy to misinterpret figures like this when there aren’t enough distinct characteristics. In the case of the Böksta Runestone, the skier could just as easily be a human or a jötunn. Jötunn are sometimes seen as kind of as gods(Skaði) and sometimes not.

Philipw0000000 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Comment:

Hi again,

I wanted to add a couple of relevant points from the Swedish Wikipedia page on the Böksta Runestone that might enrich the discussion:

Interpretation of the Scene:

The Swedish page notes: "Scenen brukar tolkas som en älgjakt, det är dock inte säkert att det rör sig om en vanlig jakt då man vanligtvis inte bedrev älgjakt till häst och särskilt inte på vintern."

(The scene is usually interpreted as a moose hunt, but it is uncertain whether it depicts a typical hunt, as moose hunting was not commonly done on horseback, especially not during winter.)

This adds another layer of ambiguity to the scene's interpretation and could suggest a more symbolic or mythological context.

Lack of Christian References:

It also mentions: "Det finns heller inga referenser till kristendom."

(There are also no references to Christianity.)

This highlights that the imagery remains firmly within a Norse pagan context, which might influence how we interpret the figures and their roles.

I thought these points might be helpful in further contextualizing the scene and the caption discussion.

Best regards,

Philipw0000000 (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI slop. If you use AI to generate a response, you are required to say so. It's complete and utter BS. Leave the caption alone or provide a citation, not an argument. The citation must be to a source that explicitly says that they doubt they are skis. See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Just one reliable source is all you need. Long and layered arguments mean nothing without explicit sources. Skyerise (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Even if "typically" implies doubt (which I don't believe it does), then the part of the sentence in doubt is only the name of the deity. The fact that they are skis isn't presented in a doubtful manner. There is no doubt that the god is Norse, there is no doubt that the god wears skis. Even the captions you quote don't question those things, only which deity it might be. But the deity isn't named in the caption, so there is nothing doubtful in the caption at all. That's what happens when you tell an AI to justify your position: it just sounds stupid! Fortunately, we don't base changes on fake or even real arguments, only sources, which cannot be combined to make an argument. Skyerise (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against responding to AI slop. It's pointless. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked multiple sources and was unable to locate a citation explicitly questioning the identification of the figure on the stone. In keeping with WP:SYNTH, I think it best to leave the caption as it is until such a source can be found.

The word "typically" according to Cambridge Dictionary (date 25 February 2025) is:

B2: "in a way that shows all the characteristics that you would expect from the stated person..."

B1: "used when you are giving an [...] usual example of a particular thing"

so "The man carrying a bow and on skis is typically identified as Ullr" as in the article would be read as:

The man carrying a bow and on skis is [show{ing} all the characteristics that you would expect from] [...] Ullr.

In this regard you are right in that "typically" dose not mean "implies doubt", but means it shows a connection of the image depiction on the runestone to the description of the Norse god Ullr in the written sources of the Poetic Edda, Prose Edda and Gesta Danorumand.

Should anyone come across a reliable reference that challenges the current identification, please feel free to update or discuss further.

Best regards, Philipw0000000 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either use your own brain or don't bother. Nobody needs to sort through your AI-generated crap. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), I don't think this editor is using WP:LLM tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you were remotely familiar with this topic, you'd immediately recogize it as at best mildly modified AI slop. Inserting yourself into a topic with which you have no familiarity is never a wise idea. The caption can and should be removed per WP:PROVEIT (as I've just done). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen a chatbot correctly quote two different Wikipedias, as being from Wikipedia? "I wanted to add a couple of relevant points from the Swedish Wikipedia page on the Böksta Runestone that might enrich the discussion" is not characteristic of AI output.

I assume that your recognition is based primarily on the fact that there is an organized list of bullet points, and not because the editor compares the caption of the same image in Böksta Runestone, in Ullr, and in w:sv:Bökstastenen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Take another look at the text above and then take a moment and look at what you just wrote. It's obvious AI slop. If you have students, you know it's typical for students today to (often poorly) adjust the AI-generated text to their needs, sometimes to attempt to fool readers and sometimes not. Some of it might also be translated. Anyway, it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that one can easily inject text into an LLM-made response. The editor here didn't even bother to alter the typical response format. And the editor didn't provide references because the prompt-generated text didn't provide them. I mean, "The use of "typically" acknowledges uncertainty, which the current image caption overlooks. "possibly depicting" aligns the caption with the text."? Get real and stop wasting yet more of the time of your fellow volunteer editors. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over what I wrote. You've declared the above comments to be "AI slop". I point out that because every word in an LLM response is just a prediction about what's normal to come next, chatbots don't make typos and don't accurately quote and contrast current versions of three different Wikipedia pages in two languages. If this is "AI slop" (yours isn't; AI would have gotten the hyphenation right; also, it's more polite), then that's not "obvious" to me. BTW, I checked one of the comments using https://gptzero.me/; it says "We are highly confident this text is entirely human 2% Probability AI generated". Is that sufficiently "real" for you?

Even if it is AI generated, the purpose of a talk page is to improve an article, and it has succeeded in the actual goal. You've already agreed that the editor's objection to the old caption was correct. None of this conversation should have been necessary, because the non-AI-generated, three-word-long original edit shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily one of the funniest exchanges I've had on this site in years, so I thank you for that. However, if you are unable to detect the obvious machine-generated text above then you really shouldn't be commenting on anything to do with this matter. Better yet, do all editors who have to clean up or respond to AI slop on the site a favor and just show them this thread without censoring your ridiculous responses to obvious machine-generated text. They'll also appreciate the laugh and know that dealing with apologists such as yourself is a waste of their time (but the prompters appreciate it, I'm sure!). :bloodofox: (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

(this post dose not use LLM 100%)

I did not use LLM(Large language models) to create my arguments and reasoning in my post "15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)" and post "13:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)". These are original thoughts from the brain of the user Philipw0000000. There was 2 times were I used LLM, specifically ChatGPT 4o, plus user (date February 2025):

1. The post 15:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC) by me was used completley by LLM for translation, as I was lazy and wanted to add the Swedish to English translation due to being a "quick and easy fix" and thought it would bring something to the discussion, and was not mentioned in the English article. I have a pretty good understanding of both languages [in my opinion] and thought the Swedish translation to English was good enough. My argument for using ChatGPT 4o here, was that i just wanted to make a fast translation and thought it was valuable to the discussion.

2. I used ChatGPT 4o for correct English grammar and spelling in post 15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC) and post 13:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC). When i used LLM for this, I got this from LLM, that I kept in the post:

"Should anyone come across a reliable reference that challenges the current identification, please feel free to update or discuss further." (this line is the only sentence in these 2 post that I can say with 100% accuracy is 100% generated with LLM. I thought it was a good ending to my response, therefor I kept it.)

My motivation for using LLM for grammar and spelling was because I wanted to have the highest amount of correct English, as it is very important for me to have correct communication. I personally am not a native English speaker, and I can read better English then I can write English. English is a international language, my reason for wanting to edit the English Wikipedia is I personally use it the most, thus the Wikipedia(English) that I use the most, is the Wikipedia I want to become better. I am well aware of the 2 users Skyerise and bloodofox have more experience then me, thus probably know more about the correct way to do things on English Wikipedia. Thus their opinion is typically the correct opinion, compared to my opinion and their word has more authoritative correctness.

I understand I have done something wrong, that is I have used LLM and would like to say sorry. I will not use LLM again.

This is 100% orginal text from me, to ChatGPT 4o:

'it is about interpretation of a runestone image, that has a person with skies and bow, and beard. some people say it is a norse god, specificaly ullr. i question this.

this is the current:

and i want to it to be this:

the reason for this is:

1st - in the Description section of the article of the Böksta Runestone it says:

"The man carrying a bow and on skis is typically identified as Ullr"

that is, using the word "typically", which shows uncertenty and thus "possibly depicting" would be better then "showing a".

the Ullr wiki article has the same image with the description:

Figure on skis and with a bow, possibly Ullr, on the 11th-century Böksta Runestone

and there there is the word "possibly" used.

also the swedish wikipedia article for the same figure has the description:

"Detalj som troligen visar jaktguden Ull med pil och båge på skidor"

so in the homecountry were the runestone is, they also say "possibly".

2nd - from logical reasoning perspective, it is not hard to speculate that the person riding is Odin. Odin is the most or 2nd most common god.

The reason for the person with bow and skies to be Ullr is:

1. In the region the runestone stands, there was a cult towards Ullr. See for example placename Ulleråker, named after Ullr.

2. The god Ullr is assosiated with skies, bow, hunting(the image seems to depict hunting).

3. In Gesta Danorum, Saxo Grammaticus say that Ullr was a god at same level as Odin, thus Ullr is a appropiate god at the same level as Ullr.

4. In Gesta Danorum, Saxo Grammaticus say that Ullr took over Odin place for 10 years in denmark. This hints at a power strugle between these 2 gods.

Reason for it not being Ullr:

1. The god Ullr was also assosiated with Oaths and no depiction of Oaths.

2. They seem to both hunt, from the image, we can not tell if they are hunting against each other or hunting together. We can tell that Odin is the one who catches the preying animal first, due to a dog and bird like animal touching the preying animal.

3. Just because Odin is a god, dose not mean he is with another god. as for example, the Thor's fishing trip story. a scen from that story is depicted in Gosforth Cross, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosforth_Cross#/media/File:Gosforth_fishing.jpg

in the image we can see 2 people, one can be identify as Thor due to a hammer, but the other person is not a god. it is a jötunn Hymir. if we did not have the source to Thor's fishing trip we could think it would have been a god, like Loki with axe for example. There are many examples of gods interacting with none gods in the eddas. Just because Odin is interacting with a archer on skies and hunting, dose not mean he is interacting with a god. He could interact with a normal human for example.

4. From my knowledge we do not have any story of Odin interacting with a person on skies. Or Ullr interacting with a person with a spear. Thus we can not go from sources to the image, but have to go from the image to sources, which make it uncertan what the person on skies is.'

I talked back and forth then with the LLM and got stuff like this:

Me:

"just make correct english:

Due to no myth one can wrongly interpret the image. For example, if we did not know about Thor's fishing trip Jörmungandr. We could interpret the Gosforth Cross showing Thor fishing as the god Thor with another god(for example Loki), but we know that the other person is not a god, but the jötunn Hymir. It is easy to mininterpret the figure as there is not enought distinct characteristic for this person. This person could be a human or jötunn for example."

LLM:

"Due to the lack of a specific myth, the image can be easily misinterpreted. For example, if we didn’t know about Thor’s fishing trip with Jörmungandr, we might interpret the Gosforth Cross depiction of Thor fishing as showing Thor alongside another god (such as Loki). However, we know that the other figure is not a god but the jötunn Hymir. It’s easy to misinterpret figures like this when there aren’t enough distinct characteristics. In the case of the Böksta Runestone, the skier could just as easily be a human or a jötunn." [rest is orginal text]

Best regards,

Philipw0000000 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not reading through any more partially or entirely machine-generated text from you. Use your human brain if you want a human response. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox, he just told you that he did not use an LLM to generate any of this text. Are you accusing him of lying? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although you spent a lot of time trying to convince us otherwise, the user's earlier text was machine-generated (as the user states, lol) and a fair amount of this likely is as well. I'm not here to dig through someone's ChatGPT outputs and refuse to waste my time doing so. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the user states that the first two comments were human-generated and LLM-translated, and that the subsequent two comments were human-generated and human-translated.

See I did not use LLM(Large language models) to create my arguments and reasoning in my post "15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)" and post "13:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)". These are original thoughts from the brain of the user Philipw0000000. See This is 100% orginal text from me and the instruction to ChatGPT to "just make correct english:.

If you read "I did not use LLM(Large language models) to create my arguments and reasoning" and conclude that the newcomer stated that the earlier text is machine-generated content, then I think the problem is not with the newcomer's English skills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, obvious AI slop is obvious. I made this very clear to you. And you'd no doubt still be trying to convince us if the editor hadn't simply admitted it. Now, it'd be wise of you to simply accept that you were wrong and maybe even regret wasting the time of others and move on. There's simply no way to squirrel around your decision to try to convince us that the user wasn't using machine-generated text, whether it was "translated" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or otherwise. The whole thing is and was ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it'd be wise of you to admit that you were wrong. The editor has "admitted" that most of his comments did not use AI at all, and that the two (2) that used AI only used it for the permissible purpose of translation and grammar checking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll just quote you: "If this is "AI slop" ... then that's not "obvious" to me. BTW, I checked one of the comments using https://gptzero.me/; it says 'We are highly confident this text is entirely human 2% Probability AI generated'." Too funny. As for "translation", not buying it: it's formatted and over-worded like typical AI slop, meaning it was just generated and not translated. Wail about "FUD" all like but nobody is buying what you're selling here, especially when you don't even seem to be able to identify machine-generated text yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I checked:

• didn't sound AI-generated to me,
• didn't seem AI-generated according to one of the detection websites, and
• turned out not to be AI-generated when the new editor disclosed which ones (two, out of six so far) he used AI at all with.

Your response to that human-generated, human-copyedited comment was "Either use your own brain or don't bother. Nobody needs to sort through your AI-generated crap."

If you stand by your assessment, then maybe I'm not the one who doesn't seem to be able to accurately identify machine-generated text. And if you don't, maybe you'll strike your WP:UNCIVIL reply to that human-written comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not buying it and I refuse to sift through-machine generated text. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I also have no desire to waste my time wading through AI-generated text, I think this last post by the Philipw0000000 is an honest and good-faith attempt to made amends and is doing exactly what I would hope to see when a user runs text through an LLM for grammar/style improvement: they have disclosed their use of an LLM and their reason for doing so, and have provided both the prompts and the output for anyone who cares to inspect them. So I think continuing to harshly condemn them is counterproductive here. Your initial complaint seems have to have produced the desired behavior modification. To Philipw0000000, thanks for being up front about why you used an LLM in the way you did. In the future, maybe consider that most of us are willing to spend a little extra effort following the human thought train of non-native English text if it means we don't have to wade through a wall of AI text. -- LWG ^talk 22:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The runestone U 855, has a nameplate assosiated with it.

You can see it at google map if you locate the stone at the cordinate: 59°46'08.1"N 17°24'44.3"E

There exist a image of the nameplate take in the year 2019. I will not say anything more as I do not know if the author of the image, wants to have his/her/it/other name associated with Wikipedia.

The describtion reads from that image as:

"Bildristningen visar en älgjakt på vintern. En skidlöpare med pil och båge och en ryttare med spjut i handen står beredda att skjuta mot villebrådet. Högst upp på stenen sitter en jakthök och en annan har redan slagit klorna i älgens huvud."

I speak Swedish and this is my translation of this text:

"The rock carving depicts a moose hunt in winter. A skier with bow and arrow and a horseman with a spear in hand stand ready to shoot at the game. At the very top of the stone sits a hunting hawk and another has already sunk its claws into the moose’s head."

This is the description of the image from Riksantikvarieämbetet(Swedish National Heritage Board). These are the people who take care of the stone and are a trusted source.

From this description we can get this information of the figure with the bow and skis:

"A skier with bow and arrow, standing ready to shoot at a hunted animal."

This is a trusted description from a trusted source of the skier. Nothing about "Ullr" or "Norse gods" or norse myth.

Thus I propose we change the text to this:

"A skier with bow and arrow, standing ready to shoot at a hunted animal." Philipw0000000 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210731184628/https://kulturbilder.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/runstenar-uppland-u-855/

Which has the description on the nameplate associated with the runestone:

"Bildristningen visar en älgjakt på vintern. En skidlöpare med pil och båge och en ryttare med spjut i handen står beredda att skjuta mot villebrådet. Högt upp på stenen sitter en jakthök och en annan, har redan slagit klorna i älgens huvud."

This description has 2 differences from the description I gave, which is the description from the nameplate in 2019. Which is this:

1.

Me: "Högst upp"

This author: "Högt upp" (forgot a 's')

2.

Me: "annan"

This author: "annan," (has added a ',')

This reference has 2 errors, compared to the 2019 image of the nameplate. Do you think this is good enough of a reference?

Best regards,

Philipw0000000 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]