User talk:Briangotts/archive 2006

new noticeboard

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights

where is the featured pic ? Maltesedog 10:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite a good picture.. but its now too late to vote isn't it? I was on holiday.. sorry about the delay. Maltesedog 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ak Ana

This article is wrong. The original source of this information - the Encyclopedia Mythica - states that Ak Ana is an Altaic deity, and gives Khanty and Mansi in parenthesis. Well, Khanty and Mansi are not Altaic peoples, and I have never before heard of an Ob Ugrian or Uralic deity with a Turkic name Ak Ana. She may be an Altaic deity, but Khanty and Mansi should not be mentioned here at all. Somebody do sth about it! (Same goes for Kara Khan). --Gene K 20:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana A. Pletnyeva

Hi there. Just thought I should let you know that only one stub notice should be used per article. For the Svetlana A. Pletnyeva article, I've kept the Russian Biography stub and deleted the others. Thanks for your time. gtdp _(talk)^(contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I've never personally seen more than one stub notice used on an article before, and I felt that putting a biography stub notice, then two notices about what she did in her life, made them a bit redundant. Sorry for the inconvenience. gtdp _(talk)^(contribs) 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly hello

... because every time I see your name pop up somewhere, I immediately think of Gringotts! · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

if Radhanites is a FA, why doesn't it say so? Tom e r ^talk 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 47/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.

The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy ^e 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical maps

Hi, I was just admiring your historical maps, after I stumbled across the one in the Mongol Empire article. In particular, I really liked the whole-world cross-section of World 820. I'd been trying to put together something similar as part of an animation of the global rise and fall of empires. That project turned out to be very difficult (I never finished anything outside Central America), so I thought I'd ask what techniques and sources you used to put together your map. -- Xerxes 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xerxes. In response to your query, I use a number of historical atlases, including the old Shepard's, various of the Penguin Atlases, and most importantly Cassesl's Atlas with tis maps by John Haywood (this, for example, was my main source for the world map in 820 CE). I also use some color photocopies I made of a Turkish-language historical atlas I found in the stacks at Harvard's Widener Library (unfortunately, I don't remember the name or publication info, but I may have it at home and will check). If you like I can provide publication info for some of the (in my opinion) better historical atlases.

Obviously all the borders are approximations and are hand-drawn either copying from historical maps or by roughly following descriptions in primary or secondary sources that don't actually provide detailed maps of their own. To the extent I'm able, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about any particular map or about the maps in general. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible verses and chapters on Wikipedia

Hi Brian: Shavua Tov ! It is important that you see the following proposed Wikipedia policy pages and their discussion pages at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5 AND Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention before discussion is closed and the "policy" is set. IZAK 09:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee elections

Thanks for your kind words, and for your support. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radhanites

מזל טוב

Tom e r ^talk 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting this article not only to FA, but on the front page! -- llywrch 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed. It's well deserved; congratulations! I've also mentioned it on the wikien-l list as a model of a well-referenced article. On an unrelated topic, I've been involved in a bit of a debate on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page regarding the value and relevance of Koestler's work, and exactly how much mention (if any) it should received in the article. If you have a chance, would you mind weighing in? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldeans

It looks like you have an interrest in that category. Someone is currently trying to remove all historical references in that category just keeping modern "ethnic" Chaldeans Agathoclea 07:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see [1] - I think I reverted it all back, but I might have missed one. Agathoclea 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbier de Meynard

I have placed a tag on the article Barbier de Meynard, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I did this because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Barbier de Meynard is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Barbier de Meynard. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not just remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Stifle 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article about this quite-notable individual. In the future, when you see an article created by someone with thousands of contributions to WP over the years, it might be prudent, as a courtesy, to give a little leeway for editing time instead of slapping on a speedy note less than 60 seconds after the article is first saved. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles qualifying for speedy under A7 are caught by "recent changes patrol". As things stand, the article qualifies for speedy deletion as there is no assertion of the importance or significance of the subject. While I do not assert his non-notability, I do assert that notability is not claimed. Stifle 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy tag was literally less than a minute after the initial article was created and while it was in the process of being created. Generally if I see a newly-created article by a user with thousands of edits under his belt, I let it sit for a little while before coming back to put a delete note on. I find it's best to give long time users the benefit of the doubt in such cases. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Coordinator Election

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artemisia

I'm not sure what happened over at Artemisia, but I hope you know you're not supposed to move articles manually. I've moved it properly, although I don't know if "Artemisia I of Caria" is an appropriate name for her since she didn't really rule all of Caria. Adam Bishop 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus

Brian, could you please take a look at Talk:Josephus? Thx. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish States for deletion

Hi Brian: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 14#Category:Jewish States. Thank you. IZAK 11:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Hey, no problem. I think the user who made the personal attack is a sockpuppet of User:-Inanna-, who was just blocked a few minutes ago for blanking pages. Would you be able to determine if I'm correct? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The IP got blocked by another admin. --Khoikhoi 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radhanite

Hello,

as you may have seen, I have been working on the French version of this article. I have been trying to improve the current map which seemed not that great. You can see here what I have been doing and the map in the article is here. However, before going further I would need your comments. Basically, I am somewhat confused on the eastern part of the road(s). Basically, I would like to know from which sources you drew the map from. It seems to me that the road which is going from India to China is to low and instead of being on the silk road (see this map from the german wikipedia de:Bild:Seidenstrasse GMT.jpg), it's right in the middle of Himalaya. Could you explain where this road is supposed to pass in India/Pakistan (if I am not clear, you can see what is missing on the current map) ? Thanks in advance. Poppypetty 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. The map you did is awesome. Best. Poppypetty 13:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That map is indeed quite nice. Tom e r ^talk 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman K. Kovalev

Hi again, Brian. No set criteria for this sort of thing, so far as I know. When I was removing the AfD template after closing the AfD it just seemed to me that the bibliography and three solid paragraphs about his career made the entry rather more informative than most academic bio stubs. Perhaps I was wrong, and if you think the article might benefit from the stub tag then please do reinsert it. Regards, Babajobu 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, biographical details of an up-and-coming prof in the field of Eurasian steppe history seem like a rather esoteric topic for the sort of riff-raff who do stub sorting, but who knows! ;) Babajobu 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aide (deity) hoax?

FYI: The article Aide (deity) you created has been tagged as a suspected {{hoax}}. Lambiam 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torah People

I have reverted your changes to various categories including Category:Moab, Category:Midian, Category:Edom, and others. The category "Torah people" includes both individual people and "peoples" in the sense of ethnic or national groups. Thus it is appropriate to include these various Biblical peoples' categories as subcats even if not every individual item within the subcat is mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the article Midian or the article Edom should be tagged; but not the category. While "Midian" proper may be considered part of Torah people, the entire category should not. -- Avi 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond, otherwise I will assume you agree with my reasoning and then tag the articles with the categroies and untag the categories. I may poll other editors on this, if so, I will link this to the category talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 16:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Midian is a "Torah people", thus the category should be included. It's not necessary for 100% of the individual items within the category to be expressly mentioned in the Torah. By the same token, Category:Turkic peoples is included in Category:Eurasian nomads, because historically and generally speaking, Turkic people were nomadic and lived in Eurasia. Not every single Turkic nation is currently nomadic.
That said, if you wish to poll other members and see what they think, I am not opposed to that course of action. But it should be carried out on as broad a basis as possible (for example, by posting to the Judaism Wikiproject and/or a Bible-studies-related Wikiproject, not just by polling a tiny select group.) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that Midian is a "Torah people" and that is why the article should be tagged. I do not think that Jabal al-Lawz is a Torah people (it's actually a place). I agree with you that Moab is a "Torah people" and that is why the article should be tagged. I do not think that Chemosh-nadab qualifies as a Torah person. At the risk of being redundant; your argument is exactly 100% correct—for the Midianite or Edomite nation as described in their respective articles. It is not true that Midian is a proper subset, or even a subset, of Torah people. There exits Torah people who are not Midianites and their exists Midan-related articles (both people and places) that are not Torah-related.

However, I think that it would be a good idea to obtain some other comments on this issue. I will be transcribing this to the category talk page of Midian, with the note that this applies to Edom, etc. as well. I think we should continue the discussion there. -- Avi 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, sorry this is something I am clueless about. Need to learn first. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marada Brigade

hey dude,

Whay have you removed the Marada emblem from the site?

Hear from you soon.

marc.

Plain versions of your maps

Hi Brian,

a while ago I translated most of the Khazars article to German, see de:Chasaren, I have also included your maps which I uploaded to commons. Now, some people have suggested that the maps should better be translated given that the average German reader cannot be exepected to be familiar with medivial Eurarisan geography and peoples. Thus, I wonder if you could provide plain versions of your maps or the original files for me to translate. Thanks a lot in advance! --Johannes Rohr 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Uyghur1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Uyghur1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isara

Isara has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smurrayinchester's RFA

Thank you, Briangotts/archive 2006
	for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 100/1/0. Thanks for your vote! If you have any comments, please say so here.

Image Tagging Image:Kohenbreastplate.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kohenbreastplate.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Scythosarmlang.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scythosarmlang.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar Correspondence

Sir, you’ve written, "Eventually the letter was given to Jews attached to a Croat embassy", could you please give me reference or more information if you have on this specific item. I’d be eternally grateful, thanks. GeneralPatton 22:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

Hey.. i'm out for adminship again.. wonder if you could help by casting your vote once again![[2]] Maltesedog 12:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006

Project news

An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page.
The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain.
Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created.
An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway.
The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.

From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lok s hin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding your request

for moving Category:Self-declared messiahs to Category:Messianic claimants: You'll have to list the former at WP:CFD for that to happen, not at WP:RM. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judah ha-Nasi

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Gamaliel III was the successor to Judah ha-Nasi.

Ah - thanks. I feel like the navigation amongst the tannaim and amoraim is really not intuitive at the moment, and I feel like a few succesion boxes could help that a little. (Also standardizing spellings a little and lots of redirects :-)). Chag Kasher v'Sameach! --Bachrach44

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

They look great Brian, thanks for bringing them to my attention. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another new article you may be interested in, mostly just taken from JE: Subbotniks. Tom e r ^talk 23:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Brian, please see Template talk:Did you know#May 12 and tweak as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Makhir of Narbonne, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

Hi Brian: I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.

Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:

1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).

2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.

As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.

This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.

Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.

Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.

Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radhanite

Yes, no problem I am going to translate what I found. I am currently moving out of my appartment so it will take me about 3 weeks to get an internet access on a daily basis, and I will start after that. I will come back to you when it's done in order to rectify the language mistakes. Poppypetty 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another DYK?

Template_talk:Did_you_know#May_17 ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, please check WP:FN. That is the preferred and easy ref. format, so let's be fashionable. Shabbat shalom! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Baruch ben Neriah, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 11:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Khazars

It's hard to say exactly, but I know what mindset he's coming from. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Qurayza

Why did you decide to restore an anon's comment that was clearly a personal attack? Pecher ^Talk 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

Radbaz

Shavua` tov, Brian... When you get a chance, I could use some help at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra... most specifically with ascertaining when he actually lived, as well as any other pertinent information. The JE article and a minority of websites indicate that he lived 1479-1589 (110 years) (relevant google search), while a greater number of websites quote a more believable 1479-1573 (94 years) (relevant google search). Thanks for your time, Tom e r ^talk 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyRussian's RfA

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Briangotts, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Muhammad

I've already thought about the same. Sounds like a good idea. Pecher ^Talk 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already beginning. Pecher ^Talk 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate your taking a look at this. Pecher ^Talk 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg

It is certainly not your editing I am concerned for, as I know you for an honorable person. It's the non-sysop Ghirla's feelings that I concerned for. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article announcements, etc.

Hi Brian, thank you. FYI, I am planning to start Portal:Judaism/New article announcements and I hope you won't mind if I start populating it with the list of new articles you gave me. I thought it is a good idea to keep them centralized for all to participate, similar to other portals, including Portal:Israel/New article announcements. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still there are some articles that belong neither to Israel nor Judaism, e.g. Shanghai ghetto. Do you think we need Portal:Jewish history and Portal:Jewish history/New article announcements?

Brian, I followed up on this: WikiProject Jewish history (shortcut WP:JEWISH-HIST). There is also WP:JEWISH-HIST/New. Feel free to criticize, improve, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jomsvikings

BrianGott, Thank you for your input in jomsvikings article. I was fully prepared that I will be involved in some another tedious revert war over a word or too; but your edits in the page are very reasonable and I was very pleasantly surprised. Szopen 13:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bielski

Aaand after looking over your interest i have the specific request to do. There is article about the bielski brothers. It is now about the book, instead that over the controversial heroes; Also, for me as a Pole it is hard to write the NPOV version of the article. Bielski's are both heroes and bandits, they saved hundreds of people and yet are remembered as simple bandits by mnay Polish witnesses; maybe you could take a look whether current version of the article is NPOV enough? I think I will abstain from the article for some time. Szopen 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defrocking

I see you didn't bother to answer any of my concerns, but preferred - as you always do - to call your opponents "vandals" and "trolls". Moreover, you invited your buddy to protect the page which he did. For the umpteenth time, you abused your admin tools by using rollback to revert my edits as if they were vandalism and deleting the redirect Oleg (which had a history of several edits) in order to move Oleg (name) back there, rather than requests it on WP:RM as it should have been done. Don't think that yout underhand activities go unnoticed. The only remedy in such cases is desysoping, which I am going to seek. Good bye, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response on Ghirla's user talk:Actually I did address your concerns, such as they were, on the talk page. As for trollism and vandalism, it is my experience that these are you modus operandi, even when I attempt to reach out and be reasonable. If you wish to go ahead and seek de-sysoping, go for it. I will of course oppose as strenuously as I am able, and point out your extensive history of name-calling and other outrageous behavior. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla has asked that I no longer post on his homepage, so I will do so here. I urge him, in the future, not to make baseless accusations, and in particular not to make threats with which he is unwilling or unable to proceed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose ben Yochanan

Hi Briangotts, I removed citations from the article as it was taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Thats fine. However, does wikipedia need the citations given by the JE? I'd contend not. As it is, the JE has been credited and anyone seeking further info can go there. Wikipedia has its sources (i.e. here the J.E.), while further down the line wikipedia's sources have their own sources (i.e. the JE's numerous sources). I believe I've conformed to WP:CITE. It clutters up the article and I've seen many other removals of such citations from other JE-based articles. See here.

Would you not agree that it would be impractical and bordering on the ridiculous if, apart from every source quoted on wikipedia (e.g. Britannica, Encarta), those sources own sources were quoted? Many thanks, Nesher 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well-taken but I think the example you give is inapplicable. An article might be written that cites to or quotes from an Encarta, Britannica, or other encyclopedia article. I totally agree with you that in such a case, it would be silly to list separately all the sources cited in that article (unless, of course, the source itself was also used in the WP article).

I think the situation with JE articles is somewhat different. In many cases, due to the public domain status of the JE, JE articles are copied in their entirety and reproduced verbatim on Wikipedia. So what usually ends up happening is that the article on Wikipedia is in fact the JE article. In such a case you can't really say that the JE article was a "source", because in fact the WP article IS the JE article- because of this, I think it's appropriate to cite both the JE and the JE sources in these situations. But I'm open for further discussion and willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jewish_history#JE_citation_format for more thoughts on the issue.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely accept the point that many JE articles are copied verbatim - but my point still stands. Do "Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii" or "Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 202, 352, 357" mean anything to anyone but the erstwhile scholar? A resounding NO. However, many users understand the link to the JE below - and if they want to continue in greater depth (and know where to find these dusty volumes!) then they can easily see the citations there. Only every millionth person or so knows what these sources mean (and even less will look them up).

Even if the "WP article IS the JE" - which is true at article inception but the archaic language and tedious formats are generally fiddled with and added to over time - why does that necessitate keeping unnecessary text that can be accessed a click away? Many thanks, Nesher 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many, but by no means all, of the JE articles brought over to Wikipedia are eventually copyedited to a degree sufficient to render them a different article than what we started out with. As for the text being "unnecessary", I'm not sure we can assume that Jewishencyclopedia.com will always be a viable site, or that it will forever be available.

I guess my argument would be that if the originally JE article is revamped to refer to all new references, it would be appropriate to remove older materials no longer directly cited. But in my experience it works the other way- usually incomplete articles and stubs are replaced by JE articles wholesale, and then the changes to those JE clones are usually relatively minor.

As for few people bothering ot look up those citations, very few people will bother to look up any kind of reference whatsoever so it seems to me no kind of argument against their inclusion.

The esoteric nature of many of the citations used in JE is a problem, but I think the solution would be to either have a separate page giving all the abbreviations used in the JE (as, I assume, the original JE did) or trying to go through and make them more clear, not to simply remove them. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discerning an underlying rationale here, one that I don't entirely disagree with. I remain unconvinced as to the relevancy of these citations (even if the article is essentially always remaining a JE clone), since what's good for JE doesn't work with wikipedia and the paradigm (although not the current reality) is that these articles should not just be copied from JE - even if its legally 110% OK - but rather edited over time. However, I see a major point you refer to in passing that has a firm basis in my eyes - the JE website won't be here forever and these valuable notes could be lost. Looking at it from my perspective, there's only one question: Is it wikipedia's role to preserve (arcane) history, however important? Or is it the recording of facts; whatever isn't critical isn't included? Many thanks, Nesher 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking whether I think Wikipedia should be a historical archive for all sorts of irrelevant references simply because they might be lost, of course I don't. But I do think that articles, generally speaking and when possible, should be cited. Now the JE articles are full of citations which may be cumbersomely (is that a word?) phrased but still have value as identifying the source of the information.

Look at it this way. Let's say an article is generated regarding a rather obscure topic, by taking the JE article and copying it wholesale. I think we both agree that these articles should be edited to make them more readable (I do love the old prose and regret that it's seen as irrelevant, but I acknowledge that it's a bit much for the average reader). But just changing the language of the article doesn't mean that you've made it a new article- it is still the old JE article, with the same sources, modified for legibility. I still think that doesn't justify calling JE the "source" for the article when in fact the sources are the works of Messrs. Graetz, Kohler, et al; some Biblical passage, or the Talmud (to name a few possibilities).

I'm all in favor of fixing the citations, to the extent we're able, and make them more comprehensible to the average reader; but realistically speaking, notes and references have real value to only a tiny minority of readers in any case. Even a "Pesik II, iv.", incomprehensible to most people, has value to a few (to quote Abraham ibn Ezra, "the wise will understand...") and I don't really see it detracting too much from the rest.

One thing I do agree with you is that inline citations should be replaced, wherever practical, with footnotes. But I would hate to see these valuable (if esoteric) references simply tossed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with you, but for different reasons. As citations for the sake of citations, I believe that just because one has copied a JE article, that doesn't mean that the person is obliged to copy the entire article with citations et al. In my humble opinion, no injustice is rendered to the fine JE (I also admire the prose but find it impractical sans certain contexts) by leaving out their citations. So on that we agree to disagree, I take it. You remain convinced of the relevancy of these citations, if only to a fraction of readers. Fine.

However, I would argue that the citations are valuable in and of themselves as a historic record, and if they can be integrated in a visually pleasing/acceptable way into the article, i.e. nice format and inline citations definately replaced with footnotes, then its fine that they stay. In light of this partial retraction, I'm only opposed in cases where the citations (especially those inline) stick out like a sore thumb and disrupt the flow of the article. I take it that you don't regard wikipedia a historical archive - and might oppose the inclusion of citations on those grounds alone were it not for their relevancy to the article. Many thanks, Nesher 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's better to agree, for the "wrong" reasons, then to disagree for the "right" ones. :-) I agree with you that irrelevant citations are pointless - it defies the very purpose of citations altogether to have ones that don't relate to the article. But sourced material should be preserved unless the source is abandoned. As I add JE articles in the future, I will try to fix up the inline citations to make them footnotes, and where possible fix the deficient citation format in the references. Much obliged for your desire to resolve the issue amicably. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, see the list of abbreviations used in the JE --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to you. Don't worry; I may yet come round to your way of thinking :). Would you like me to restore the Jose ben Yochanan citations? Many thanks, Nesher 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done... I can see you've put in a lot of work -- Nesher 12:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghirlandajo

I've been looking through the issues you have raised. I think it is best to stick very closely to discussing article content with this editor, and save any discussion of editor conduct for an RfC or something similar. Based on his behavior, that (or something similar) is looking increasingly likely (unfortunately). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stacking

You have recently been observed cross-posting in order to influence Categories for deletion#Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"¹, such cross-posting should adhere to the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia's internal spamming article. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking². It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.

«₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on my talk page is incredible, considering postings here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Categories requesting votes. There is no wikipedia policy against informing long-standing members of votes the outcomes of which may interest them. In no case did I request that the party vote one way or the other. Your outrage is highly misdirected. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother I understand what you are saying they are wrong to ask to vote or induce people to vote.. "That is Gaming the System", (See above how I learnt my lesson) Whoever does it its wrong maybe you can tell them to stop doing it.. probably they dont know.. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I sent the message only to people I know and have collaborated with on Wikipedia, who I knew would be interested in the vote. I did not randomly select people for spamming. Nor did I post a request to vote on a blatantly POV wikiproject page requesting votes. As it happens many of the people I contacted voted to rename the category, and after discussion I came around to their point of view, not the other way around. That's not gaming the system. That IS the system. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary suppose people who you asked, voted in support of you? Wouldn't that be gaming the system? See brother, my idea is not to threaten you or anything.. I dont want you to do the same mistake I have done (ofcourse in my case it was totally unintentional as I didn't know the rules I assume the same with you). And I am only being nice to you. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mystic: I came to User talk:Briangotts for an unrelated reason and I saw your post. I would welcome Brian's notification but I didn't get it. I must say that I find your intimidation and threats unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find spamming on "both sides", and to partisan "Guilds", totally unacceptable. It casts the results of everything tainted with it into doubt. Brian has a point when he says it already is way out of control on the Muslim Guild. The complainers here have a point when they say that Brian spammed. I have a point when I observed that BhaiSaab spammed (and more egregiously than Brian, it would seem, as he'd contacted people who hadn't even been involved in the discussion). We can't let this get any more out of hand. Can we take this to WP:ANI, where I have requested clarification on the guideline?Timothy Usher 10:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir

Yes, that's the usual modern apologetics. In addition, people sometimes complaint about an incorrect translation of Muhammad's biogrpahies as if a massacre could somehow become a warm welcome with the right translation. Pecher ^Talk 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa

Some strong POV-pushing going on there. Pecher ^Talk 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd and Vfm

Hi Briangotts, please see

Many thanks, Nesher 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midian

From my talk page:

Thanks for restoring the template box to Midian, which I inadvertantly removed while revamping the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I appeared to be jumping the gun on you. I know that kind of thing can happen inadvertently.
Kudos on the referencing job you did on Midian, by the way. I think I'll adopt that style in future edits. --Eliyak 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir mediation questions

Please help Banu Nadir mediation succeed by providing your opinions in answer to your column on the Talk:Banu Nadir#Dispute location identification answer grid (referring to the questions in the preceeding section.) With luck, this will help narrow the focus of the dispute. Publicola 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Vishniac

Hey, yea, and thanks for nominating it! I think it's a good article for the Main Page. Should we shoot for August 19 (his birthday)? -- Rmrfstar 00:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, but I'm well aware of the vandalism that the article will attract if it's on the Main Page for a day. Also, do you know what the policy is on fair-use images on the Main Page? -- Rmrfstar 11:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Many thanks indeed. A barnstar from a celebrated editor like you is the greatest appreciation I have ever received here. Pecher ^Talk 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd

Hi Briangotts, please see:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 22#Category:Jewish day schools

With hope all's well by you, many thanks, Nesher 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Briangotts! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sambalut and Kazarki

Hi Brian, you wrote: My information on these cities is that they were in the north caucasus, possibly in Daghestan but definitely not in Armenia.

My mistake. Most of the similar articles on such places in Wikipedia are on places in Armenia, so I'd just assumed these were too. It should be noted that all the caucasus countries have separate stub types though, so whichever present-day country the places are in, that country's country-geo-stub should be used (in this case, I'll change those two to Russia-geo-stub). Euro-geo-stub is only used for places that straddle several countries (like rivers) or ones in countries too small to have their own geo-stub (like San Marino). Grutness...wha? 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab

A case in which you are a party (Banu Nadir) has been submitted to mediation by the Mediation Cabal. Please review the proposed solution in this case.

Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein 1814-1851.png

Greetings Briangotts.

I'm somewhat puzzled by this image you've uploaded. May I ask, what is your source? (My guess is this page [3]) The Dannebrog was indeed the flag used in Schleswig and Holstein during the Danish reign, but this period goes back many centuries before 1814. True, Schleswig effectively became independent from Denmark during the troubles in the fourteenth century, but parts of both Schleswig and Holstein were quickly returned to Danish rule. The entire province of Schleswig had been returned under the Danish crown by 1721 and Holstein followed suit in 1773. Since the Danish flag was originally a symbol of the monarch and his army and navy, I see no reason to assume that this was not the flag flown over all strongholds belonging to the Danish kings. The Dannebrog was also the only flag allowed in use on the monarchy's ships, including merchant ships. This includes ships of the two duchies.

The "end dates" are somewhat problematic as well. The page I found mentions 1845 as the year the symbol was made official. To me this seems like an attempt to outlaw the secessionist flag of the pro-German Schleswig-Holsteiners which had been created a few years earlier (around 1843, I think). Btw, the secessionist blue-white-red flag is now the official flag of Schleswig-Holstein. The end dates mentioned as 1849 / 51 looks like the years when the Dannebrog was officially outlawed by the secessionist administrations in Schleswig and Holstein, but the northern (pro-Danish) areas of Schleswig used the flag throughout the 1848-51 war. On the other hand, its use was immediately scrapped by the Holsteiners and the southern (secessionist) parts of Schleswig. The case of the merchant ships of the two duchies during the war is a bit more complex, but on land, the case was more clear-cut. I've taken the liberty of removing the image from Nordic Cross Flag for the time being. Best regards and happy editing. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Thank you, Brian, for your support in my RfA. I am happy to be able to say that it has acheived a consenus of wikipedians, and that I will be assuming my new responsibilities immediately. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ayyubid.png

Hey... I was wondering if you could cite where you got the information which allowed you to draw the borders for that map. It would also make it easier for someone to redo the work if they make a cleaner version. Thanks. gren グレン 04:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:ghirla

I suspected that. It's not even quite my first brush with him (I got WP:OWNed at Moorish Revival too). It's mostly that I haven't been doing much user-related stuff since becoming an admin, so I preferred to get some guidances. Circeus 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did not even oppose on content. He reverted over image layout. It's not something I am exactly strong about, so I let it drop. But it happening repeatedly is rather disturbing. Circeus 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,I had noticed about that. Circeus 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider

...reverting yourself at Jewish ethnonym. That word is an offensive ethnic slur and the intro says that the article does not list those. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know. Thanks for consideration, Brian. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User box columns

I've made the change for you, hope it somewhat approximates what you're looking for. If not, of course, please revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The many spellings of Ibrahim ibn Yaqub

Could someone consolidate the pages Abraham ben Jacob and Ibrahim ibn Yaqub al-Tartushi, with a redirect to Abraham ben Jacob (better written IMHO, but the other article contains some extra details) after the consolidation of information occurs? They're the same person, a Jewish trader, traveller, and chronicler from Spain. The redirect from Ibrahim ibn Yakub (with a K) to Abraham ben Jacob is effective. - KAB 67.186.191.198 12:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kennedy

I've also added a category. Pecher ^Talk 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put that sentence back. Pecher ^Talk 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Rjensen is well past the 3RR limit. Pecher ^Talk 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning User:Haham hanuka/Alex

Sorry to drop in on you like that, but you were the first admin with he-language-skills I could find; could you have a look at the link above and tell me if this article in userspace could constitute an attack or something in this line? I've semiprotected it at a the users reqquest, but as he has been, let's say difficult, in the past, I kind of wonder. Cheers and many Thanks in advance. Lectonar 12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps.: see also here Lectonar 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast response; I'll follow your advice. Happy editing. Lectonar 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Allegations of Cuban apartheid to Tourism apartheid in Cuba

(this is copied from Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid)

User:Briangotts wrote "moved Tourism apartheid in Cuba to Allegations of Cuban apartheid: Move without discussion was totally uncalled for; these are indeed allegations, to call it "apartheid" without qualification is to render the term meaningless."

Hi Brian, the discussion prior to the article creation was with respect to the title "Tourism apartheid in Cuba" or "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" -- see [[4]]. It was you, in my opinion, that arbitrarily picked a new title and imposed it without discussion, not myself. So far, it is just you who feel that it should be called "Allegations of Cuban apartheid" - it was not agreed to by Jayjg (who didn't comment at all), Homey (who seemed to support the new article and didn't comment on the name), myself (who suggested the name "Tourism apartheid in Cuba), and Zleitzen (who makes him opinion clear above.)

It is important to say what type of apartheid it is in the title since normally one assumes apartheid has to do with race, when in fact, in the case of Cuba, it is related to tourist vs. non-tourist divide. Also the whole article is oriented around the term "tourist apartheid" -- you'll notice this if you read through the article. --Ben Houston 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response and continuation of this thread can be found on Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid.

Jews of Rhode Island VfD

Hi Brian: As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history I am bringing to your attention the vote to delete the article Jews of Rhode Island at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 17#Jews of Rhode Island. Thanks. IZAK 07:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Höfuðlausn

I grant that I'm not up to snuff in American scholarship, but this Pr Miller you quote is one I never heard of before... also, I note that, although he himself quotes Icelandic sagas as an area of interest, I notice they can hardly be his specialty, and since he seems something of a polygraph, unless he's also a polymath, I doubt he can be a Sigurdur Nordal, Herman Pálsson or Régis Boyer level authority. and honestly, I don't care who may have originally suggested a substitution of targets, it's one thing to pass one king for another when saying who the kennings refer to, but if the actual name is there... no way substitutions can be made, especially when you notice the variation in length the fact that alliterations for one name will never work for the other. This means that, to change names, you have to get the whole verse out and make up a new one. I'll try and find a net site with the poem on it to try and see how many times Eirik's name is present. Yours truly. --Svartalf 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hello Briangotts/archive 2006, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Njal's Saga and Laxdaela Saga

Sorry... I fear I can't contribute much to the matter. It's been an awfully long time since I last made a reasonably thorough reading of those sögur. I could read them again, and check my Régis Boyer French version to see what analysis he may have added onto the text (but since Njála is the last in the volume, I guess he'll have commented it less than others), but even if I do get onto it, and I have a lot of reading that's late, and if I find useful stuff to add, it won't be fast work. Yours truly. --Svartalf 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John McDermott

Someone is playing a prank with the entry John McDermott. Please have someone revert the content back to what it was at the Revision as of 12:45, 15 May 2006, when it referred to a valid, notable person, a professional golfer, rather than the bizarre character they've conjured up now. 67.186.191.198 01:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Deir Yassin massacre arbCom case

I have filed a ArbCom case against Guy Montag for the violation of his probation, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dier_Yassin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why

your revert on Kol Nidre - wanna explain it? --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hamikdash article

Hi Brian: Please read the attached request I received . Thank you. IZAK 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need administrator help in Temple in Jerusalem

Hi Izak,

A user by the name of Biblical1 has completely rewritten the Temple in Jerusalem article multiple times, presenting some rather speculatve views of a few contemporary thinkers as objective fact and scholarly consensus. At this point, would it be possible for you or some other administrator to freeze the page and guide a discussion on the Talk page? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shirahadasha: Thanks for contacting me. I am not an admin, but I will bring your message to the attention of others who may be able to help you. It is also very ironic and sad that on the eve of Tisha B'Av that this needs to be dealt with. Sincerely, IZAK 07:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatherland map

Hi Briangotts, I just wanted to leave a message about the map you've made for the Fatherland page. It's very impressive and thankyou for making it! However I was wondering if you could explain why on the map you have left India, large sections of Africa, and the Middle East in grey. The novel suggests that India is still British, the whole of Africa is under European control, and it can be assumed that the Middle East is still under British control. Maybe those areas could be coloured in orange along with the rest of the colonies? Rusty2005 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was just wondering why the map has most of Africa orange but some areas (eg: Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan etc) as independent - where did you get that from? Surely all of Africa should be orange? Also I think those three little countries in north-east South America, and Honduras, should be orange. They were all still under European control in our world until recently, so I guess they would have been in Fatherland's world. Rusty2005 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sect of Skhariya the Jew

You mention in hat text that Ivan III referred to someone else as "Shariya the Jew". Unless I'm mistaken, Skhariya/Shariya is just the Russian form of Zachary/Zaccharias/etc. So I'm not sure if this really means much. Is it really worth a hat-text? - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hi, I really liked your maps such as Khazar_map1.PNG and was wondering what is your source for the background because I am really interested in creating maps for a whole bunch of articles because seeing where the places the article talk about is so important, and your plain backgrounds are both neat looking and descriptive without clutter and I would love to use them for the maps I want to create.--Tigeroo 08:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jewish_history#Members

I wish to join the Jewish History Project. How would I go about doing so please? Hardyflower (Hardyflower 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

47 in Middle English

Hi, I am collecting translations for the number 47 (forty-seven). So far I have 509 translations, which you can see here. Can you help and tell me how to say and write 47 in Middle English? I'd be most thankful; please reply on my talk page. Thank you! — N-true 14:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map colours

Good work on the maps! I've put a minor request for a colour change on Image talk:Radhanites.png Bluap 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Smuts's youth - FAC

As someone who has expressed an interest in Jan Smuts in the past, I thought you might be interested to know that Jan Smuts's youth, covering his childhood and early adulthood (1870-1895), is under consideration for Featured Article status. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jan Smuts's youth

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 00:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Jews of K'ai-Fung-Foo, China.jpg

Hi. I saw your reply on the talk page above. I have responded. I Am Not A Lawyer, and am not too sure about copyright law... However, their terms of service seems to make things clear for me. Of course, I might be misinterpreting everything. My reasoning, though, is as follows: If I take something in the public domain, then modify it, I have the copyright on my modification. I'd appreciate your thoughts, and a response to the extract of the TOS I posted on the talk page. Thanks, --Storkk 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your statement, I gather that I can remove the copyright tag on the photo. I'll procede to do exactly that. Thanks for your clarification. --Storkk 13:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about leaving the tag. It is not copyright JE, and it is confusing to anybody who uses Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source. It raises the question of whether they can use the image. Besides, the image page clearly states that it came from JE.com, as does the image talk page. --Storkk 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do them as I find them, when I find them. That's generally how I go about fixing things like grammar and spelling on Wikipedia... as well as all the other painful things that I correct. I'm not going to go on a crusade for all JE images to remove the (C) tag, I'll do them as and if they annoy me. Thanks again for your input though. --Storkk 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altaic?

Hi, The main problem is related with the "(disputed)" tag, cause this leads misunderstanding. There exists Altaic Languages but there is going on discussion about Altaic thesis. This "(disputed)" tag causes the misunderstanding that "--- language's being Altaic is disputed". For this reason, i'm supporting to remove the "disputed" tag. The discussion should be done either in the Altaic Languages page or maybe better in the Altaic hypothesis page. e104421 3 September 2006, 20:22 (UCT)

Effendi

Hi, in the Wikipedia article 'Effendi', you added a link of a source by Baranovitch to support the idea that the word 'Apandi' also appears in the Old Uyghur language. Do you have detailed information about that source? May I find a link on the internet that reaches the source you mentioned? Or, if this source is within your reach, is it possible for you to you send me a snapshot of the 'Apandi' related article? 85.102.185.136 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read Baranovitch in college years ago and had the reference and citation in my notes. I do not currently have access to the book. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then one more question. Which one of the following did you give in the 'effendi' article as the reference to the claim?

Notes

1. e.g., Baranovitch at n. 41 -----> Was it this one?

References

Baranovitch, Nimrod. "From the Margins to the Center." China Quarterly 175: 726-750 . Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003. ----------> Or this one?

85.102.185.136 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote refers to the referenced work, at footnote 41. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the claim is very intriguing, I will try to reach the reference, hopefully will be able to do it. Thanks a lot.

85.102.185.136 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing protected pages

Your action in editing the protected page Folke Bernadotte was an unjustified violation of procedures. You are also mistaken in your comment "sourced material was removed". In fact libelous material (including a book by one of the murderers of Bernadotte) was removed with a complete explanation on the Talk page that cited an academic historian in evidence. --Zero^talk 10:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your action was very justified and showed that violation of wikipedia rules won't be tolerated. There was also indeed the vandalism of sourced material which was collaborated with 4 different books, and removed without any explanation and without the proper procedures - asking for citations, introducing rival sources and so on. At any case, there was a violation of WP:3RR unrelated to this and you did correctly and wisely by maintaining the version prior to the violation. Thank you. Amoruso 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as well; protected pages are often restored to the pre-3RR version. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish vs. Judeo renaming

Hi Brian: Your learned input would be greatly appreciated at User talk:ThuranX#Your past nominations to rename (Wikipedia:Undeletion policy). See my comments there please. Thanks. IZAK 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brythons

Hi,

You seem to be pretty good at learning languages. A current talk is pending ins FR Wikipedia, in which you'll recognize a map you downloaded.

(in French)It's here. I let you guess the purpose of what is discussed there. To sum it up, we try to separate legend from historical facts in history of British Isles & peninsulas (finisteres) time 4thCE-6thCE.

Quite hard, since everything was mixed up during the matter of Britain, 12thCE. That's my idea, at most.

Please let me know which articles in WP:EN rely on historical facts, if any, as displayed on your Britain 500AD map.

As a matter of fact (&not of Britain !), I found it the most accurate in my commons:Early Middle Ages study, and I mean it.

You can answer down here in my talk page. You can also express yourself about the ideas in the fr page, should you decipher it. Many subjects, I guess.

Yours sincerely + see you,

Ultrogothe 15:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)* P.S. : Would you take a little time to correct my misuses in the Commons page, that would be kind; I guess misuses are left there [I=French person trying to achieve fluency, though nothing's better than a mother tongue learning.][reply]

Olaf the White

I can be of no help there. Maybe we should ask Haukurth if he's got sources on the matter? it looks like even if he does not, the wikibuffs of Norse history lurk around his page, so maybe it would advance your cause. Since Olaf is also mixed in Irish history, perhaps Fergananim would know, or know people who do. --Svartalf 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that very man when I was writing Cerball mac Dúnlainge. If you're interested in "Olaf the White" and "Ivar the Boneless" in Ireland, and the quotes are there for a reason, Donnchad Ó Corrain's paper "The Vikings in Scotland and Ireland" (pdf here) is worth a look. If I was writing about him, I think I'd go with Amlaíb Conung, but that's just me. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hussite Wars Images

Please accept my apology for the delay. I cannot find the copyright for the images(though none of them are McBride's images), and I believe they should be removed from Wikipedia(all three of them). Thank you. Rshu 22:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images are not by McBride, I have the Osprey Hussite Wars book illustrated by Angus McBride, and none of the images on Wikipedia are in the book. Rshu 19:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Qurayza

Have you looked in lately on Banu Qurayza? I'll admit it: the very username Truthspreader really puts me off; in any case, I have my doubts about his recent edits to this article. You seem to know the topic more than I, could you take a look? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Briangotts. I have seen that you are doing good work on Old Norse matters. I am doing a major overhaul of Beowulf-related articles and begun with Hroðgar and Halga. I would like to have them peer reviewed, and you may have opinions.--Berig 10:14, 23 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]

Thanks! I am glad and grateful that you have had a look at hit.--Berig 16:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great addition to Hroðgar! If Neil Gaiman has written the script to an upcoming version of Beowulf, it has the promise of becoming a much talked about movie.--Berig 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sect of Skhariya the Jew

Hi Brian: Perhaps you can provide some perspective on this weird article that relates to Russian history: Sect of Skhariya the Jew. Is its information true and valid? Thanks for your time. IZAK 07:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lubavitch vs. Barry Gurary

Hi Brian: Please take a look at the Barry Gurary article and the talk at Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content in particular. Your views would be greatly appreciated in the discussion. IZAK 09:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detente

So do I. I'm happy that Wetman explained to me the meaning of the object illustrating the article. Now my attention is hijacked by Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile. Sorry not to be able to improve Tmutarakan further. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just expanded Rostislav of Tmutarakan, by the way. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your map is being deleted from the article by User:Alex Kov, who edits without logging in. This disruption needs to be dealt with. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5][6]. --Irpen 17:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added citations to the map's image page. The map is unfortunately Mercator projection, which causes some distortion and may make Sviatoslav's empire look unrealistically big. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The guy has problems with WP:POINT rather than with your map. His original research contributions (such as this), based on fringe theories and steeped in nationalist colours, were removed from Rurikid articles. He revert warred about it for some period and now removes new uploads to these articles, pursuing WP:POINT. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category vote

Hi brian: Please provide your view at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel. Good Mo'ed. Thank you. IZAK 04:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Josephus

I noted your concerns in respect of the attempt to strip "Josephus" of his Jewish identity by relegating his Hebrew name to a footnote and the use of the Christological date references.

I invite you to read my comments hereafter addressed to another user; and all of the contents of the "discussion" of Josephus.--Lance ^talk 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really offended by the ex post facto "christianization" of this article. How can this possibly be justified? The article in question is a Jewish history article; and the arguments to remove Jewish references are so weak that an inference of bigotry is manifest. My recent interest in the article is that I had forgotten Josephus' Hebrew name; the current form of the article is not encyclopedic.--Lance ^talk 09:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As you can see, this is an old dispute. Let's sort it out at the article's talk page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have carefully read, and re-read, the discussion page; and, I'm afraid that the only conclusion possible is that the users promulgating "AD" over CE, and relegating the Hebrew name to a footnote, are antisemites pure and simple. If necessary, I will demonstrate this; but I think any reasonable reading of the discussion fails to accept an alternative conclusion. It appears that you have made too many concessions in the past. Generosity is admirable, but not to the point of diminishing logic, well established historical conventions, and Jewish dignity. I am not sure what course of action to take. I have been registered in Wikipedia for just a few weeks.--Lance ^talk 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svyatoslav

Holy glory. I would like to know what is the Norse counterpart to this. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be "Helgatyr" (Helgi= holy and tyr=glory) but I'm not aware that this was ever used as a personal name. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hloð is "Glory" in Old Norse. Tyr is Old English. Both Helgi and vé can mean "holy". There was a personal name Hloðvé which was used by a Jarl of Orkney, but I'm not sure if it has the same meaning as Sviatoslav.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Pic

Hi Briangotts, are you up for a discussion about the disputed Muhammad Pic? --BostonMA ^talk 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with the Hun. I'll see how the discussion develops but like he says, there has been absolutely no concrete objection raised, based on WP policies, why the image should be removed, other than a general iconoclasm based on a particular interpretation of a religion not shared by the majority of WP users. I believe removal would be outrageous- the image is souced and is a historical relic (made by, it should be noted, Muslims). Since those objecting to the image maintain that Islam objects to images of all of its prophets, are we to now remove images from Jesus, Abraham, etc.? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several points

"there has been absolutely no concrete objection raised, based on WP policies..." WP:Profanity states in part:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

I believe that I am following this guideline. I believe that the image is a) considered offensive by a large number of people, b) is not informative in the context of this article -- we have absolutely no clue regarding the event which this image is depicting. I would very much like to know whether you believe you are applying this guideline, or whether you believe the guideline is inappropriate. If it is inappropriate, how would you amend it?

"Since those objecting to the image maintain that Islam..." This is an inappropriate ad hominem argument and is furthermore incorrect. Please discuss Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than the alleged views of editors.
"are we to now remove images from Jesus, Abraham, etc.?" Are all images of Jesus and Abraham uninformative in their respective articles? (added later --BostonMA ^talk 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Looking forward to hearing from you again. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your latest message, I am not sure our views are at all reconcilable. In my opinion the image is neither offensive nor obscene; it was created by people who revered and honored Muhammad. The only reason it is "offensive" is because there are some people who object to all images of Muhammad, and by extension images of religious figures in general. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what I wrote was that the image is considered offensive by a large number of people. I consider this a question of fact. Do you disagree that large numbers of people find the image offensive? It is entirely possible to reconcile the belief that "a large number of people find the image offensive", with a personal valuation that does not find the image offensive.

I would still like to know how you would answer the questions I have asked originally. Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting)I see no contradiction between including the image and the policy you cite. My interpretation is that image must be both subjectively and objectively offensive and this falls far short of that standard. You also seem to maintain that while these images should not be included in the Muhammad article, they might be appropriate for a separate article on images of Muhammad. I encourage you to establish such an article and see if the attempts at censorship are any less frequent there. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see WP:Profanity as being based upon the subjective values of the editor, but that is my reading. Yes, I do believe that images of Muhammad are appropriate in other articles. For example, articles on Persian art, or Depictions of Muhammad. If fact, the image in question is found in the latter article. You write "I encourage you to establish such an article and see if the attempts at censorship are any less frequent there." As a matter of fact, you can see that that article is extraorinarily stable -- 50 edits since June 1. There is an occasional blanking vandalism, and although I haven't read the talk pages, there may be someone who argues there that the article shouldn't exist, or shouldn't have images in it. But even if the article were vandalized on a regular basis, and even if people who did not support Wikipedia's encyclopedic goal argued for deletion of the article, it would not mean that attempts at censorship there means that application of the WP:Profanity guideline is inappropriate here. --BostonMA ^talk 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the image of? Who are the people in it? Why are they gathered round? Why are some wearing persian-like Shia caps? Who is the woman? When was this set? We know so very little about this image, it does seem important, but its done on a large minbar, which would appear to make it late-ish, but that would rule out Abu Talib from being present, but maybe that was artistic license. Is there a copy of the image in context, that is atop of the text that accompanies it, as that would explain what we are seeing. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ludicrous. Your standards would eliminate virtually every image on Wikipedia. You are clearly searching for excuses to remove an image you find personally offensive. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, we don't know what the image in question is about. However, we do know what is going on in a depiction of Jesus being crucified, or Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son, or any number of other images. Applying a standard that says that if we can't say anything sensible about what an image depicts, then that image is not informative seem reasonable, and it clearly would not apply to many, hopefully the vast majority, of images on Wikipedia. But note, the majority of images do not need to meet even this minimal requirement, because they are not considered offensive by significant populations. --BostonMA ^talk 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not representing the situation accurately. The image is sourced and the source describes what is depicted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source, unless I am missing something, says the image is a depiction of Muhammad. Being made several centuries after Muhammad's death, and without any attestation that the image is a reasonable likeness, the image does not inform us of anything in particular about Muhammad's appearance. Given that we don't know anything else about the image, the information content of the picture, related to Muhammad is essentially nothing. The image is informative about Persian art. It is informative about the variation in attitudes about depictions of Muhammad in Islam. But I don't see how it is informative about Muhammad. If I am mistaken, could you please write a paragraph describing things I might learn about Muhammad from the image. --BostonMA ^talk 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image illustrates the veneration in which Muhammad was held by Muslims of al-Biruni's time, and how they viewed him. Wikipedia biographies contain numerous images made by people long after the death of the person depicted. See Jesus, Gautama Buddha, Leif Ericson, Genghis Khan. You are setting up false criteria for judging whether the article should be kept, criteria that were never intended to be part of Wikipedia policy but are rather your own (in my opinion, very tenuous) interpretation of what that policy means. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image illustrates the veneration in which Muhammad was held by Muslims after Muhammad's death. The image might therefore appropriate in an artcle on Islam (assuming no better images available). The Muhammad article is about Muhammad, and only tangentially about Islam as it evolved after Muhammad's death.
Wikipedia does include images of figures such as Buddha, Leif Erikson and Ghangis Khan which are not historically accurate. These images usually add aesthetic value to an otherwise barren textual landscape. But we should be clear they are not informative. They are acceptable for the purpose of providing aestheic value, in part because they do not violate any other policy or guideline. To my knowledge, no good-faith complaints have been made that these images are offensive.
You say you disagree with my interpretation of WP:Profanity. Do you disagree with the part that says: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not"? I would really like an answer. Do you disagree with the part that says "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."? If you disagree, could you explain how you would amend this guideline?
There is obviously a conflict between writing an encyclopedia and not offending people. An encyclopedia, if it is really "encyclopedic" will cover material which will unfortunately offend some people. It would be nice to avoid being unnecessarily offensive, while still covering offensive material in an encyclopedic way. But how do we decide what is "unnecessarily" offensive? To me, that is the purpose of the section: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." If an image is not informative in a given context, and it further is considered offensive by many people, then, in my opinion, it is probably unnecessary to have that image in that context. --BostonMA ^talk 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are in fundamental disagreement about the nature of "offensiveness". You appear to believe that because a group of people, based on subjective criteria, regard an image as offensive, it should not be included. I believe that it is a consistent principle of both law and common sense that offensiveness must be measured objectively and subjectively. The fact that a particular group is offended by the inclusion of an image that, as you admit, adds aesthetic (and as I maintain, informative) depth to the article does not warrant its deletion. There is no objection to the image on the grounds that it depicts Muhammad in an offensive manner (and, I do not believe that such an offensive image could be excluded from an appropriate article, such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or Piss Christ, for that matter), only that it is offensive because it is an image of Muhammad. This is an encyclopedia and is governed by the general principles and obligations adhering thereto. It is not governed by sharia and arguments based on sharia cannot exclude images or material from being included if they are otherwise well-sourced. That's really all I have to say on the matter, and I refer you to the additional arguments made by User:The Hungry Hun, with which I concur. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several points

You have mis-characterized (or misunderstood) my position as:

"You appear to believe that because a group of people, based on subjective criteria, regard an image as offensive, it should not be included."

That is not my position. My position is that, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, if a group of people regard an image as offensive and if that image is not informative in the context of a given article, then the image should not be used in that article, but it may be used appropriately elsewhere.

You state that you maintain that the image is informative. I agree that the image is informative. A picture of a butt-plug may be informative to someone who does not know what one looks like. (I still don't). However, while removing a picture of a butt-plug from the butt-plug article may make that article less informative, removal of a similar butt-plug image from Michaelangelo would not make that article less informative about Michaelangelo, even if it could be established that Michaelangelo used a butt-plug. So, as I have asked before, please write a paragraph detailing the information appropriate to the Muhammed article which the image in question provides. I really do not understand what is, or could be, that information.
In reference to the following paragraph:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

I have asked you a number of questions. Unfortunately, I don't feel you have responded to them. To make the discussion fruitful, I think we really need to engage with each others concerns. If I have not engaged your concerns, please let me know, and I will try to do better. However, I would very much like to know with regard to this paragraph:

Do you agree with the first sentence?
Do you agree with the second sentence?
If you disagree with either, how would you amend this guideline?

I think the references to Sharia are out of place. It is not Wikipedia's mission to offend, although we must do so incidentally in the course of writing an encyclopedia. In my opinion, if there are guidelines that say that doing X causes offence which is unnecessary from the point of view of writing the encyclopedia, then it should not matter which group is offended, but rather all groups should be treated equally, whether they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, women, Blacks, gays or whoever. That is my opinion, I would like to know yours.

I look forward to your response. --BostonMA ^talk 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have said nothing new here. I have responded to your questions to the best of my ability - you simply choose not to accept my answers, which is your right. However you continue to attempt to impose an artificial standard of "offensiveness" on this project which it was never the intention of its founders to follow. I accept in its entirety the paragraph you quoted. But as I said offensiveness must be measured both objectively and subjectively. A Jew might find the visual depiction of the Tetragrammaton to violate the tenants of his faith, but it would be unreasonable to expect Wikipedia, which is not bound by the laws of any religion, to adhere to religious law (or one subgroup's interpretation of the laws of a religion it shares with other subgroups, some of whom actually created the image in question). For this very reason the image of "Piss Christ", which is FAR more offensive than the Muhammad image you object to, is not censored from WP. I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly to you. I am trying to assume good faith but you do not seem inclined to accept my view or acknowledge that I have even made any points. Therefore I don't know that continued discussion will be fruitful. I will not agree with your imposition of an entirely subjective standard of offensiveness which would only lead to more images being censored in the future. Cheers, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that communication seems to have broken down. Please remain cool. I appreciate that you believe that you have answered my questions, and that you believe that I have failed to address your issues or acknowledge your points. However, from my perspective, I did not, until this last comment, an answer to my question about the paragraph from the guideline that I had quoted. I am very thankful that you have stated that you accept in entirety the paragraph I quoted. That clarifies things for me a bit. Also, from my perspective, you have not told me what information you think the image supplies that related to Muhammad that is appropriate to the subject of that article. Perhaps you feel you have answered that, but I have not been able to "hear" that answer. From my perspective, I have also acknowledged many of your points. If you feel that we are unable to communicate, would you be amenable to having a mediator assist in our communication? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it has been a while since I have heard from you, and I see that you are active on Wikipedia. I will assume that you may still be considering my suggestion that we obtain the help of a mediator. If you are not amenable to discussing with me with the help of a mediator, please let me know. Also, if that is the case, would you object to my copying this discussion over to the Muhammad talk page, so that it would be visible by more editors? Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may copy this discussion to whichever talk page or pages you wish. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Article

Hello Briangotts. Quick question - Like you, I have an article waiting to be reviewed for GA status, and was wondering if I can do some minor edits to it while it is there? Or should I un-nominate it and edit the article, the resubmit? This is my first attempt at a GA. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think mine needs another photo. Good luck with yours. Cheers! JungleCat talk/contrib 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khazars

Hi. I think your name may be Brian. You corrected the intro and made it easier to read. Thank you. Yesterday was my first time on the site and I appologize in advance if this post is not where it should go. I am learning about the site. Thank you anyways for respecting my passage. FYI, I am a non native speaker/writer.

Comment on the Khazars: There is no evidence so far, despite what Prof Hammer at Univ. of Arizona may say, that the Ashkenazi population clusters around what is considered to be proper Middle Eastern populations (Syrians, Lebanese, etc). Prof Nebel has been very clear about this but since these are very political issues that may or may not be used by people to dismiss a nation and start wars, then it is in everybody's interest to water down the facts. It is sometimes better to steer clear from these controversies as job security may or may not be jeopardized. FYI, Prof Nebel used to work at Hadassah Hospital at prestigiuos Hebrew Univ. He is now at Institute for Clinical Molecular Biology, University Hospital of the Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany. Needless to mention the case of the Spanish scholar who had the unfortunate luck to get mingled in the "Palestinians don't exist" controversy.

On the other hand, mtDNA is quite of a thing to work on in laboratories. There is a lingering doubt that mtDNA is not as fire-proof as people may think as it may lend itself to recombination events. This itelf is hotly disputed in the scientific literature. As a rule of thumb, anything DNA is in a way or another more akin to quantum mechanics and Schrodinger's cat that many people may be aware of. It all boils down to probabilities. If not so, what are the recombination enzymes doing dancing around mtDNA then?

Lastly, yours truly is a trained biotechnologist with trainig in both the natural and social sciences. Thus the intertest in the subject matter. Thank you again. Hazael

I am not a geneticist and have no educated opinion. I regard all of these genetic studies with a healthy skepticism as many who engage in them appear to be agenda-driven. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Briangotts/Rus Khaganate

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) 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I took the liberty to derail this nomination for the time being. The article needs lots of work, and I plan to get down to it over the following week. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision. KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances. Should Guy Montag violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 00:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sarkel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarkel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Iceland - 1914 Proposal.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flag of Iceland - 1914 Proposal.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hi!

Great map for King Arthur. However, recent research suggests that the Attacotti came from costal Munster, where they were a subject people. Can you fix map to reflect this? Cheers! 83.71.162.221 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did in this edit summary. --BostonMA ^talk 21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuous removal of a well-sourced, relevant image is, in my opinion, tantamount to vandalism. Therefore, kindly do not lecture me on NPA, which is not applicable here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles

Thanks for your article about the Byzantine historian. Could I ask you to announce your new articles, if they have something to do with Middle Ages, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles? Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a note of it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you beat me to the punch this time Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svyatoslav's family

Basically, chronicles have no data about his "family life". Everything is speculation: that he had an elder brother, whose wife Predslava is mentioned in the Russo-Byzantine treaty (Vernadsky); that Oleg's mother was a Czech woman (because he escaped to Bohemia, according to some very late sources), etc. I don't think it's wise to spawn unsubstantiated speculations. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't think I will be able to contribute my knowledge to the articles about early Slavic history as long as User:Beit Or is around. He is not constructive, responds to every discussion of policy with unwarranted accusations of personal attacks, and most recently unleashed a disgusting revert war on Igor, Grand Prince of Kiev. As long as his disruptive behaviour continues, I prefer to edit less stressful topics. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thanks for your response. I don't think the citation tag is particularly helpful, although it would be intereting to know which word is used by Skylitzes. Kinship terms in Middle Greek were rather vague. Some Russian authors seem to interpret the passage as indicating that Sphengel was Svyatoslav's uncle, not brother. Another problem concerns the statement that Svyatoslav asked Slavic tribes not to pay tribute to Khazaria. I checked the Primary Chronicle: these words are actually attributed to Oleg of Novgorod and addressed by him to the Radimichs! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please do not make personal attacks as you did in this edit summary. Note that good faith edits during a content dispute are not vandalism and unwarranted labeling of editors as vandalism may be construed as a personal attack. --BostonMA ^talk 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly removing sourced materials without consensus, as you have done in the Muhammad article, is tantamount to vandalism. I have engaged in no personal attacks on you. Calling an editor's edit what it is is not violative of NPA, as it is the action, not you, that is being called into question. Moreover, I find your attitude perplexing, in light of the fact that you devote a considerable portion of your own user page to an extended attack on another user, disguised as an attempt at diplomacy. Please immediately cease your harrasment of me on my user page. Thank you. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus image in the article from August 2005 until the recent conflict. The image was changed without consensus, and repeatedly insisting that you have consensus does not make it so. Whether the personal attack was directed at me or not is irrelevant. Improper accusations of vandalism are disruptive to Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your perplexity, statements such as "It figures that you should feel so strongly about my comment about "clueless Indians" since you are obviously one of them." are not civil. Therefore, I have an issue with the editor who made them. However, when another editor deletes an image that was inserted without consensus, and which does not have consensus, that is not vandalism. I hope that helps to clarify your perplexity. --BostonMA ^talk 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is clear to me. I still regard it as inconsistent and flexible to suit your needs of the moment. Cheers, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I did not say there was consensus for keeping it. I said there was no consensus for removing it, and no one has yet articulated a reason consistent with a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy why it should be removed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call for removing both images, but was willing to give support to the compromise proposal made by User:HighInBC. However, you will note that I encouraged User:HighInBC not to remove the other images [7]. --BostonMA ^talk 13:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't at any point say that YOU called for removing both images, but this campaign has emboldened those who would like to censor Wikipedia in its entirety and they have begun to move far beyond what minimum accomodation you intended to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help?

I like your work. If you need any help with something please let me know. (Jallor)

DYK

On 19 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rus' Khaganate, 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.

--Andrew Levine 19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Briangotts, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good books

I am very impressed by the scope of your knowledge, what are some books you would recommend more to learn about central asian history, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. thank you

For the period you specify, I recommend Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game and Setting the East Ablaze: Lenin's Dream of an Empire in Asia. Svat Socek's History of Inner Asia is good for general refernce. For earlier history, (c. 1500 BCE-1200 CE) I recommend David Christian's A History of Russia, Mongolia, and Central Asia. Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World contains many valuable insights. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maome Mediation

Hi, I notice that you have not reverted the Maome image in a few days. I was wondering whether this was a sign that you had changed your position. Not long ago, I put in a request for mediation with the mediation cabal over this issue. I would like you to be a party to the mediation if you would be amenable to that. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Map question

Brian, you are listed as the creator of the image "Image:Khazarfall.png"[8] which is used on Khazars which shows the rise of Kievan Rus' around 950 AD. Do you remember what source you use for the Kievan Rus' expansion? We are discussing this on Talk:History of Transnistria and there are conflicting sources. A couple of historians (sources provided by me) back up your map, but one in particular (provided by another user) apparently does not. If you can bring your source or sources, that might help us. - Mauco 03:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sources for the various Khazar-themed maps included the Cassell Atlas of World History by John Haywood and the Penguin Atlas of Russian History (Puffin, 1995) as well as descriptions given in a number of secondary sources. The maps are approximations though- they should not be used to "prove" that x kingdom ruled x region at x point in time. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Course not, but thanks. Take a look at this one, though:[9] which appears to match yours and covers the same period in time (962 AD in that case). You are welcome at any time in Talk:History of Transnistria if you want to share some of your knowledge with us on this subject. - Mauco 03:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation cabal request re: Khazars

ColumbanAgain has requested informal mediation regarding Khazars#Theorized Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim and has identified Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, and Briangotts as interested parties. I've tried to summarize the dispute on the mediation page. I also have a few short questions that I think may be helpful in resolving the dispute.

Columban, I have a few questions for you here;
Any of the others who would like to respond, I have a few questions for you here.

Thanks -- I'm looking forward to working with you all. TheronJ 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins

Hi there. While I realise you want the South Park episode included in the Dawkins article, please recall Wikipedia has a policy of making decisions by consensus, and several authors have now reverted the addition and several others have agreed on talk the article should have no trivia. Please try to convince us on talk before editing further. (Oh, and remember WP:3RR too please). Regards -- Mikker ^(...) 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my edit summary, your "consensus" is the ephemeral conclusion of a handful of editors who, were I not assuming good faith, I might think were "owning" the article, with no discussion or presentation of opposing points of view. I am well aware of 3rr and was not in violation of it; your post implying that I was is not appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, erm, YOU get to decide that it's merely "the ephemeral conclusion of a handful of editors"? So can you go to any article you like and make any edit you like (whatever everyone else thinks) by claiming *YOU* know it's not REALLY a consensus? Frankly, some humility is in order. Besides, if the consensus is indeed "ephemeral" you can easily follow WP:CONSENSUS and argue your case on talk. (Which I note you have not done). And I wasn't implying you were in violation of 3RR, your behaviour led me (erroneously) to believe you were new so I wanted to alert you to the rule. Anyhow, I tried to post a friendly message, your hostility is not appreciated. Perhaps you are the one in violation of WP:FAITH? Just a thought. Mikker ^(...) 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I specifically said that I was assuming good faith and therefore would NOT assume that you were "owning" the article. Yet after implying that I was in violation of 3rr, you now assert that I am in violation of the good faith principle. Curious. In any case, when I have time I will assemble a cogent and detailed argument for inclusion of the satirical material. Frankly it's not high on my priority list. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assuming bad faith. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wiki-stalking people who don't agree with your POV edits. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favour?

I´m an user of es.wikipedia, and I´m working on es:Vikingo, where your image Image:Viking expansion.png would be great. Can I upload it to commons to allow all wikipedians using it? or even better, could you upload it, so it won´t be neccessary to keep the file in english wikipedia?

Thank you, and sorry for my my poor english level.--FAR 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed!--FAR 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Guild POV-pushers trying to get original article deleted to protect their POV Fork

Striver's POV-pushing cohort User:Burgas00 has, in a fit of his POV-pushing zeal, nominated Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident for deletion here. The cowardly bad faith POV-pusher wouldn't even sign his own name to the deletion request either. I thought you should be warned of this. RunedChozo 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Early_Rus.png

Could you take a look at the question at Image_talk:Early_Rus.png? Thanks! Vmenkov 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jew" page and "Crimean Karaites" page

(1) At the "Jew" page under "Ethnic Divisions", please change the word Gruzim to Gruzinim in the phrase "...and such smaller groups as the Gruzim..." I don't have an account here so I don't have the permission to modify locked pages. (2) Concerning the "Crimean Karaites" page, I asked for an update to the existing sentence: "At the time of this writing (March 2005), genetic testing is being conducted to ascertain their ethnic origin." As we discussed, I am the first and apparently only person to conduct genetic research on the Crimean and Polish Karaites, but unfortunately I could not find more than 8 qualifying and willing people to participate. They had to be men and unrelated paternally to any other in the study, and I had to approach Karaites living outside of eastern Europe because those who are still there have clung to the Khazar myth and are hostile to Jews. I cannot claim that my research is anywhere near statistically significant. However, it does prove a relationship exists between at least some Crimean Karaites and Middle Eastern peoples, and does provide avenues for further exploration (such as the question of whether the Karaite family we found to have haplogroup Q obtained it from a Turkic ancestor). Since there are a limited number of Crimean Karaite paternal lines to begin with, because of heavy interbreeding within the group, the 8 lines I studied are examples that probably reflect many other families. The debate over whether Karaites are kin to other Jews is effectively resolved in favor of Yes. Any person wishing to dismiss such a relationship will expose himself to be either an apologist for Seraya Szapszal's fraud or someone who was misled by the apologists. It is most potent in combination with the historical evidence showing many Crimean Karaites used to live in Istanbul. In the future if I can locate other bona fide European Karaite men I can expand the study; if another genetics team wants to continue the study that is also welcome. - Kevin Brook

Vote

Please vote 67.70.70.33 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Sviatoslav I of Kiev, please keep it up! Khoi khoi 21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Svyatoslav

It's been a pleasure to work with you on this article. I can't think of any days specificially associated with Svyatoslav. The feast days are for saints, you know, and he was a pagan whose life is not very well documented, too. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on Khaganate until the end of the week. In the meantime, could you take a look at Talk:Birka. There is a heated discussion on this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Whisky Region Maps

The problem I have with the map is that it is incorrect. If you must ad a map, use one that is correct. Speyside is completely wrong on your Map. Islay is not even on the map. The Islands are not a region and the delineation between Hoghlands andlowlands is WAY off. Why keep adding it when it is wrong?--ScotchGuy 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember this policy. The tone of your message was unnecessarily hostile. If you had looked at the map you would see that it had been revised entirely. As for your contention that Island single malts do not exist, I refer you to The Island Whiskey Trail by Neil Wilson (Glasgow: Angel's Share, 2003.) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScotchGuy 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)I really don't care what you think of my tone. There's also a policy against adding erroneous information and reposting things over and over. Why are you so god-aweful eager to add a map (that is wrong) - because you made it? I refer you to the SWA who are the official "keepers of the regions". There is no Island region.[reply]

Template:Khazaria

Brian, I don't know much about Khazaria, so I let you rule on this. I do not like bulky templates, but it's only my personal opinion. I normally create templates when I feel that articles on a certain subject may be lost to our readers, because they are almost linkless and categorization is of little help. In other words, I use templates as a surrogate for "see also" section, which I find generally annoying. If some area may be covered by existing categories, it's better not to clutter the template with a simple list of items. But I'm sure you know as much and more! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animated world history

I'm not familiar with Cassell's Atlas (goes to look it up right now). Well, I guess my goal is to reproduce the best of Cassell's most comprehensive work in a free (as in GNU liscensed) electronic medium. I'm strong on programming skills (in theory at least, if not in practice), but weak in the artistic department (though I've been wrangling around with the GIMP these last few days, tweaking with a 39-frame series of the Roman republic/empire). There's a lot I could learn from you, I think (like what programs you use).

My visions are grand and will probably need trimming down to a practical size. With the proper programming setup, I should be able to mark and name arbitrary geographic regions on an image, then use a script to control a simple program to overlay all the pretty colors we like to see. I think I'm imagining a unwieldingly high level of customization, but I won't know until I try. So far, I've found GMT to offer the kind of controls I'm looking for, but those tools aren't geared for animation (yet; if I could gain the right kind of UNIX programming skills, I'm sure I would wind up working with the GMT programmers to the point where my influence would inspire an animation plugin or something). Xaxafrad 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most of the maps I've created for Wikipedia have been with very basic tools like Paintbrush. I essentially take PD map images from elsewhere on WP (Wikipedia:Blank maps is a good tool, see also the map on the topography page), then edit them in png format on Paintbrush.

Cassells has a series of world maps showing the major states in any given time period. the maps are color coded (green for hunter-gatherers, beige for pastoral nomads, pink for simple farming cultures, light brown for chieftaincies and complex farming cultures, purple for state societies and dark brown for empires. certain long-lived empires (Roman, British, etc.) are delineated in unique colors.

If you look at Image:World 820(1).png, that was largely based on a cassels' map for that year.

Suppose we drafted a series of individual maps for each time period, then had them animated to show changes over time. It would'nt be useful to show expansion and shrinking of most states since they took place over too short a period of time, but it would be useful to show the general progress of urbanization and state formation around the world. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masawaiyh

I noticed that you have removed my edits on Masawaiyh as dichotomies. I'm not an expert on this subject, but what I have read, Masawayh or Masawaiyh was a Persian Nestorian Christian. None of the books that I have seen on this subject refer to him as Assyrian, and there is nothing contradictory in being Christian and Persian, there were many Christian Persians at that time. So how sure are you about this? Cheers. :) --Mardavich 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever seen him referred to as Assyrian, or rather as a Syriac-speaker. To my knowledge Persians of the period did not customarily write in Syriac or Aramaic. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, tomorrow morning I'll see if I can find something on this in the college library. Cheers. --Mardavich 22:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should write

Brian, I was just noticing your recent map that you mentioned on Ghirlandajo's Talk page. I like the detail on that one, and went on to review all the maps you've put together.

I am particularly impressed with your extensive "Source" listings. Most historical mapmakers here in wiki-land seem to ignore this critical documentation (or perhaps lack it all together).

What program do I use? Inkscape. It's freeware and is very powerful. The best thing is that my maps are very very editable. I notice that you, like I, make changes to your maps, so Inkscape comes in very handy. Yes, there is a learning curve, but it's worth it in my opinion. And, yes, it's probably a bit harder to develop a multi-color map, but again it's worth it.

Regarding your maps, I would urge you to use the standard colors listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. In particular, I think it's important to use the standard color for bodies of water and "#FFFFD0" (a light tan or cream color) for the land -- whenever possible.

I also list my own guidelines on my user page, if you're ever short of reading.

Happy mapmaking!!! MapMaster 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map

Hi, Brian. I am pleased with the newest edition of your map. I have some comments, but they are not essential:

Are you sure that early Pskov may be qualified as a Scandinavian settlement (it is red in your map)? At least nearby Izborsk was a tribal centre of the Krivichs, with no traces of a Varangian presence (although it was burned to the ground simultaneously with the settlements of the Rus' Khaganate, towards the end of the ninth century).
Per Tatiana Jackson and the Machinskys, Alaborg was situated on the Syas River rapids, immediately east of Ladoga. The Syas River flows from Lake Ladoga southward, in parallel to the Volkhov. There is a minority opinion that Alaborg was pre-historic Olonets but it does not enjoy much support.
I don't understand why you persist in spelling Rostov as Rostofa. This is a ridiculously distorted Slavic name, used in several quite late Scandinavian sources. The original Norse name for Sarskoe Gorodishche is not known. I also don't understand the question mark and the frame at this point of the map. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Re:Pskov: I based this on the fact that Olga of Kiev's family were supposed to be prominent Varangians who settled there. Given that she married Igor in the early 900's, it's not unreasonable to classify Pskov as the situs of a Varangian settlement at least in tradition. I don't know how the archaeology measures up. Christian definitely identifies it as a Rus Khaganate site, as do (I believe) Franklin and Shepard.

2. Re:Izborsk being burned with the Rus' Khaganate sites; I imagine that the line between Slav and Varangian was not particularly clear-cut in many areas and that there were "Viking-ized" Slavic ruling classes in some regions just as there were Slavicized Viking rulers in others. It was probably more of a spectrum than a clear cut "I am Viking, you are Slav" dichotomy. Not that that affects the map, it's just a thought.

3. Rostofa- this is clearly what Norsemen called the town in later times. Sarskoe G. is a more modern designation so I don't see why it would be a more appropriate name. However, I will add a note to the map description discussing the issue since you think it is important.

---Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

Russian History Project

Brian, I don't take such projects seriously. One doesn't have to spam thousands of project banners on talk pages of articles written by others if he really wants to improve their coverage. I have seen most such projects fall apart rather quickly after much ado with banners and assessment scales. I suppose it was Mr. Lokshin who introduced this practice to Wikipedia and I recall that he regrets it now. Probably I'm getting lazy with time, but I don't feel myself able to embark on the series of the Rus' history articles. It would require examination of too many sources, too much time and too much energy, now that I have some other projects to pursue. Kievan Rus, however, needs serious expansion, so I plan to tweak it after we are through with the khaganate. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added your name to the Cartographers's list

I've added your name and a link to your gallery to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cartographers. --DelftUser 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC alert

Thanks for the heads up! Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Christianization of the Rus

I finally started this article, which I view as a useful appendix to the Rus' Khaganate. I'm not wholly satisfied with its title. Can you think of a better one? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of facts

Regarding this, I am afraid this is not a good editing practice. Those places need inline citations and/or footnotes explaining them. I have restored them, please don't remove them but replace with either inline citations to a source making such claims or to your reasoning based on existing sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack removed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify one issue: I don't consider your edits vandalism, but rather unconstructive (I dislike most deletions). If done by a newcomer or anon, I'd not hesitate to warn them more sternly, when done by a more experienced editor like yourself, I am assuming much more good faith - that either you had a bad day or a good reason (which, unfortunatly, you failed to explain sufficiently to my satisfaction in the edit summaries). This was not a 'best start' but I hope we can edit together peacefuly and constructivly in the future; through I'd still prefer to see a note at the end of this para telling the reader that it is not an idle speculation about number of sources but they are explained below, I'll let it pass - it's a minor point (I have also withdrawn my objection at FAC, the article looks good). I might have also been a little too blunt with my last comment, but I most certainly don't appreciate how it was refactored above. I am sorry I forgot to notify you eariler, but I am kind of busy in RL and few things slip my mind: regarding the above edit by Ghirla I asked for input at ANI. I don't appreciate editors replacing my comments with false accusations of personal attacks, but I don't want to start a revert war on your page; I'll leave it up to you what to do with the comment above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm

Stumbled into this via AN/I, but have to agree with Piotr that such an edit is substandard to expectations on a seasoned editor, at best. Did you even look lower down and see all the cites and wikifying you discarded and didn't edit back in? I get upset by any action which wastes anothers time herein, as should we all (See this for example), we're all volunteering discretionary time after all, and I would have said something far more pointed. Please do remember to respect others contributions and time when making any edit. // FrankB 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This extraordinary edit will be discussed here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mountain jew.JPG

Please provide reasons for wikipedia to believe that Image:Mountain jew.JPG shows what the caption says. `'mikkanarxi 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation. This vendetta you appear to have embarked on does not become you. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta? Did I post this image for deletion or even tagged it? In fact, what I did was a defense of this image with obsolete tag. Don't you know about this copyright frenzy in wikipedia that aimed to delete all old russian images, armed with 'bots? Also, did you offend me in some way somewhere so that you have a reason to expect vendetta? I am not aware. `'mikkanarxi 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was hasty and misjudged your intentions. If so I apologize. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Let me congratulate you that the khaganate is now a FA. To think about it... Just a month ago we had zero FAs on early Russian history and now we have three of them! P.S. Today I uploaded Image:Dorostolon.jpg but did not add it to Sviatoslav I on account of its blurry quality and chaotic composition. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Brian, thank you. Much appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brian, I also would like to thank you!!!--Berig 10:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here! :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[10] made on December 18 2006 to Banu Qurayza

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Briangotts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I count exactly two reversions [5]; [6] and then an insertion of a sentence to similar, but not identical effect. [7]. Where is the violation of 3rr? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

request now moot, you've been unblocked. - crz crztalk 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Based on [11], it seems clear that the "reverts" being referred to are actually a number of different edits to different effects, each of which was reverted fewer than 3 times. This block is highly improper. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to unblock you. I disagree with your count, and it being a close call I'm not going to apologise; but at least you're unblocked William M. Connolley 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you apologize is your own affair. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian rabbis

What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion

Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis

Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship

Thank you! I accept.--Berig 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Áedán mac Gabráin

Hello Brian. Would you have some time to look over Áedán mac Gabráin and see if it comes anywhere near to featured quality? I'll be in Scotland over Xmas and New Year, so I should be able to get more sources if there's anything woefully missing. Very many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi Brian: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial comments

Hi Briangotts,

I think it is not proper to add personal editorial comments and criticisms of the works of scholars (e.g. [12]). Such comments could be found in the reviews of the works of scholars. So, please find reliable sources for them. Thanks, --Aminz 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "personal editorial comments." They are facts. Your refusal to recognize them does not make them less factual. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial comment would be "he is wrong". Saying "he cites no source" is recognizing a fact evident from the face of his work. If you have further comments to make do so on the talk page. This is not the place for this type of discussion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide

Please can you take a look at the Noahide article. Interested in your input. Cheers. frummer 06:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tmutarakan

Hello and Merry Christmas,

I noticed you have nominated Tmutarakan for good article status. The article seems concise and very well referenced, however I think it would benefit from an infobox (for both cosmetic improvement, and for summerising the text) - I'm assuming that infoboxes for defunct/ancient Russian (or otherwise) settlements may not exist however(?).

I've had a breif search on similar articles but have not found anything appropriate. If you also do not know of such an infobox, or simply disagree, do please let me know, other than that I'd be very much happy to pass this article.

Kind regards, Jhamez84 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000 bce

Do you watch the Simpsons? I was like Homer when he sees a giant box of jelly-filled donuts. Your new map is absolutely awesome. I wish I could commission you to reproduce as much as you could from Cassell's (especially as I was hoping to get a copy for Christmas, but copies are hard to find, I guess I'll have to drop-ship it), but everything you've produced so far is already more than I would hope for (compared to every other free map on the internet). There's a small group of historical fans trying to put together a comprehensive historical atlas...I'm going to add a link to your category of images at the project page. Thanks! Xaxafrad 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's the historical atlas WikiProject, and the more current-events-themed commons:Atlas. From my point of view, the emphasis in the Historical Atlas project is on as-accurate-as-possible maps of various areas prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, all the way back to when the earth's crust cooled and the first ocean formed. I'm not sure how many other project members share that view, but it's mine. I'm sure your point of view as a historian and cartographer would add a great shot of vitality to the Historical maps project (I'm not sure there's a definitive mission statement, we all just want to make really great maps of places that have never been mapped before, I think). Xaxafrad 01:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mapmaker's Barnstar
		For past and continued hard work illuminating (pre)historical territory in historical context, via numerous top-quality maps. Xaxafrad 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nesr

The tag "{{prod}}" template to the article Nesr, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Nesr. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Central Asia

Your input on this F.A.R. is desired. KazakhPol 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your historical world maps

I'd just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed looking at your new series of historical world maps. Keep up the good work! I'm looking forward to see the next ones in the series. Kairos 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]