User talk:Javits2000/Archives 1

Welcome!

Hello, Javits2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 2 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Kazhdan, 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.

-- tariqabjotu 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Identity

I've been away for a bit and just had chance to check the Byzantine Empire talk page. I agree with your comments and points raised there but I despair of reaching a consensus with the likes of Miskin et al. To be constructive perhaps it might be better to take the bull by the horns and get on with the job. Therefore I propose starting an article at Byzantine Identity/Draft - once completed it can be moved to an appropriate and agreed upon page title. Regrettably I see no way round Miskin's selective interpetation of history, therefore it will be necessary to ensure that everything is referenced from reliable academic sources. Anyway let me know what you think. Regards, Roydosan 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we got a new Byzantologist at Wikipedia? Great! I missed a few episodes though, it seems. What's that dispute about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposed article and am happy to support you in producing it - I think it could be very productive. I have fairly good access to academic sources as well so should be able to contribute a fair bit, though prob not till Christmas/New Year. How would you propose the article be configured in terms of content, etc? Regards, Roydosan 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Josef Strzygowski.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Josef Strzygowski.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Hello! I know you have been a contributor to the discussions at Talk:Byzantine Empire, so I am eager to know what you think about the latest proposal on that page. There is a vote about whether or not we should change the Byzantine Empire from pink to purple in all the maps of the article. I would be very happy to see your support or object, or even comment on this issue. Please let us know what you think! Thanks, Bigdaddy1204 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your quick response :) Bigdaddy1204 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contributions in Byzantine Greeks Javits. Excuse the overtones I might have occasionally used with you. I have encountered many editors with biased intentions that have wore my patience thin, but I know now that you're not one of them. Miskin 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original intro in order to undo Mirisili's edits which contained his personal opinions. I didn't notice that this was added by you. I have no problem in adding it back, it's very relevant since 'Rum' describes even today the remnants of the ethnic Greek minorities in Turkey as well as the Greek Orthodox populations of the middle east. Miskin 20:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castelseprio

Hi, I saw you linked to the new article there. You might have a look at the talk page, where info-box fans want to push the fresco pics underneath the standard Italian "commune" infobox with its delightful coat-of-arms. Johnbod 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Cassel-whatsit

I had a bit of a go at it, in between sorting out the problems of Micky-baby's blinking ceiling job and Leo's teenage admirers.... Are you relatively (comparatively, even) satisfied with the way it is, now? Thank you for all your little corrections.

--Amandajm 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I took a look at that website. The problem is that lurking somewhere in my subconscience is something-or-other that is very like those frescoes and I just can't put my finger on it. There are passages of painting there which indicate that regardless of what precise date we put on them, they are the works of a person who was as innovative as Giotto or Massacio.

The thing that really impresses me is the naturalism and 3-dimensionality of the figures. The lying figure of Mary follows the basic format, except that iit is foreshortened in a way that I've never seen, and she looks like a woman that's given birth. The mid-wife is outstanding. the foreshortening of her body which is turned side-on to the viewer is so naturalistic. The whole figure is natural.

Anyway, I'll keep thinking about this- I've looked at the Paris Psalter and the Scroll of Joshua. --Amandajm 14:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've been following this, but as you will see on the talk page, there is now considerable confusion re the layout - of the church, not the article. Do you have access to GP Bognetti et al, Milan 1948 Santa Maria di Castelseprio, or Weitzmann, Princeton 1951 The Frescoes at Castelseprio. Or anything with a plan view of the frescoes, or a wide-angle photo? I'm sure we'd both be very grateful if you could take a look whenever you get a chance. forgot to sign Johnbod 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please e-mail me the Leveto PDF. Thanks again Johnbod 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

duhh

"noxious agenda"? i made no damn edits to that page, you simply cant take it because your anglo saxon view of history has been destroyed by that article. No major historian agrees with your anti greek shit.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Halbinsel.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halbinsel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography

Hi, This article is a big gap; at the moment it is mostly a less good version of icon with sections on Hindu, moslem etc. art. Really that should go to "religious art/Images" or something. Sometime ago I added the first sentence on the primary meaning, but haven't taken it further. Is this something you could consider for your long term list? It needs a pro, I think.

I've just set up Category:Iconography which amazingly wasn't there before, though the sub-cat Christian Iconography was. I'm trying to gather in articles that belong there - a very mixed bunch quality-wise so far, but some ok ones. If you know of others, please add.

Cheers, Johnbod 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think the whole existing article can legitimately be retitled, leaving the iconography title clear for the new one. It will be easier to do that than cut the material out. It might be best to get the article to a certain stage on another title before moving them around - "Iconography (art history)" or something. I hoped it would fit in with your programme Johnbod 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Levant

Dear Javits2000. Thanks for your comments about the template. I created it and have been placing it in different places to see where it might be useful or not. I leave that primarily to the longstanding editors on those pages to decide if they can benefit from its inclusion or not. If you feel that it is obstructive there (in terms of size) or redundant (in terms of content) but all means, make the necessary changes. I defer to your familiarity with the subject matter on the page. I just want people to know it exists, if they want to use it. Thanks again for coming to discuss it with me. Tiamut 15:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand. Thanks for the heads up. Tiamut 16:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300 Edits

Nice catch! Thanks for the assist! :) Arcayne 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that was an unfair label - most of your edits are very good. In the quote reverted, it appeared that the new edit appeared subjective. If I was mistaken in that, my apologies. It was not the sole reason for reverting. Again, my apologies. Arcayne 15:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've converted the block texts in the Historical Inaccoruacy sections to prose. Take a look and tell me what you thing. Arcayne 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you altered the direct quote from the Time article. I don't think we can do that and maintain the quotation marks, as it becomes a paraphrasing. Perhaps using parentesis around the word 'Tehranis' might accomplish the same task. Thoughts? Arcayne 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - either you dealt with it in a subsequent edit, or I missed what you were doing. Likely the latter. Again, you are performing some very solid edits, and I really appreciate that. :D Cheers! Arcayne 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's getting into shape nicely. If you don't mind me asking, your english usage indicates that English may not be your primary language? Arcayne 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like o retain a couple of the word choices you altered:

troops versus host - host implies the vastness of the Persian army, and that the numbers surrounding the Persians are insurmountable
terrified to face with quaking with fear at facing - the latter being more descriptive (despite being Dilios' own word)

I feel quite strongly about the inclusion of these two phrases. Arcayne 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really sure what you meant by citation stacking. I just went to the article and noticed no less than 10 references next to the statemetn about Xerxes' protrayal in the depictions section - it looks pretty OCD to me. We should choose one that best represents the statment and move on. Right? Arcayne 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as Niko added them, we should let him decide which one or two to preserve. Do you want to tell him? I would do it, but apparently I am persona non gratis as far as some of the POV editors are concerned.

Arcayne 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for the suggestion - you received the credit for the improvement as per the edit summary Arcayne 15:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I bit of a heads up. He pulled it off, likely realizing that everyone could see it. Arcayne 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs in 300

Thanks, and sorry for being busy. I'll check it out and maybe add one more. Niko Silver 09:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I realize that some of sources are not properly formated, but I don't think removing the sources [1] is such a good idea, properly formating them might be the better solution. Otherwise, the sources don't take any space in the article itself, just the footnotes, and they're useful to the readers. Cheers. --Mardavich 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Favor

the article Braveheart requires a ton of work, and is sort of my pet project. That said, if you've seen the film, could I trouble you to go (at your convenience) and do that voodoo you do so well on the plot? It's at 1500 words, and of course needs trimming. The rest I can compile on my own Arcayne 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC) GAHHHH! Dude, if you ever want to claim that particular heritage again in public or private, please call it Scots heritage, or Scottish heritage, or even Scots-Gaelic background. Scotch is a liquor. It's akin to calling people of asian descent 'oriental'. Arcayne 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (getting his kilt in an uproar)[reply]

What's the Dilios?

Pardon the pun. Do you want to work it up, or should I? No sense in us stepping on each other's shoes. :) Arcayne 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy, or Production? Arcayne 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very illuminating (which kinda intimates that they knew it was going to rile some feathers, and thus distanced themselves a bit in the film). I have an idea for how I want to do it, but I want to cut down the fine-tuning edits a bit, so which do you think is most applicable to the historical accuracy section? Arcayne 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daryaee Statements

Miskin should have responded by now, as he was the one who claimed that Daryaee's statements contradicted Herodotus' account. I am thinking that the accounts are different in that Daryaee is likely citing sources on the Persian side that contradict Herodotus, but I don't remember enough of Near-East History 225 to know what those sources might be. I'll pop off a message to Miskin again, as he did make some good points about other things (pov aside), and if the good prof's statements are weak in some way, it is in the article's best interest fix or replace them. If he doesn't get back, then this conversation is moot. Arcayne

Well, Miskin seemed pretty convinced. However, your edits have been stronger and more consistent than his by far, and you have earned my faith. I am trying to divorce myself away from the idea that Daryaee could be mistaken, but I remember the prof at ZCambridge commented that he often made leaps of intuition that were atypical for most historians, moving towards contrafactural preface - a sort of crazytown where professors go when they spring a leak. lol Arcayne 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty good article can be found here, and I think they seem to be better than Daryaee's statements currently in the article . However, take a look and tell me how you interpret its usefulness to the article. Arcayne 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300 Persian garbs

Hi. Then maybe it should be added under 'Depiction of Persians'? Barnetj 12:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops - spelling errors Arcayne 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Sorry if the addition of Greek to Danakis was out of line with previous discussion. As time permits I've been looking through the archives for this article, but haven't found anything. What was the issue, and what was the concensus so I can avoid making the same mistake again? Hewinsj 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the quick response and the link. I just thought it would be notable, but I don't disagree with the decision there so I'll let it drop. I may enter the discussion later to see if we should note who the person writes for like with Stevens in the same paragraph, but that depends on free time. Hewinsj 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Well-conducted discussion. Jeez, you are a pretty nifty editor, bud. Arcayne 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am always worried that I am bringing the Baseball Bat o' Harsh (and sometimes I find myself using it vs. particularly unpleasant edits/editors). You are actually milder than I and sharper, too. I often take my lead off of people like you, Big, Erik and Benham; a common opinion between is usually the correct path.

I didn't see that, but I kinda wish he'd conduct his therapy somewhere else. Arcayne 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, isn't editing 300 fun? Arcayne 07:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just you wait, I hear various advertising agencies are gearing up to protest the film. David Ogilvy himself has issued a declaration from his retirement castle in Bavaria, that the piss-poor marketing of 300 to not offend everyone (thus ensuring sales worldwide) has so angered him, he has called for DVD advertising to be done only using reverse type. Ad agencies across the globe are promising to reduce the viewing of internet porn by at least 15 minutes each day in protest.

Oh yes. You thought it was bad now, just you wait when the Admen come to town. :D Arcayne 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the absacker link supposed to take me to? It was an article in German. Arcayne 05:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: idem

Hello Javits2000,

Thanks very much for your kind note on my talk page. I, too, believe that we'll be able to work together to develop a text that accurately represents the response to film. I will try to work on the article whenever I can but I might be busy in the coming next days. There is no deadline in wikipedia and that's the good side of it. Hope everything is going well with you. --Aminz 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 300

Never mind, semi-protect restored via WP:RFP. But thanks for not responding. --Javits2000 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm aside, the appropriate means is to go to WP:RFPP, as you did. If I agreed with leaving the semi-protection, I would have kept it in place when I removed the full protection. I still don't really believe the semi-protection is warranted now. -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had you explained your position three days ago, I would have gone directly to RFP, and those of us who have the thing watchlisted would have been spared a lot of hassle. As you're such a stickler for the rules, I'm assuming you checked with the editor who originally instituted the semi-protect before removing it. Never mind how, in a period of less than an hour, you could go from feeling that full protection was required to feeling that no protection was required. The whole thing strikes me as ill-considered at best, but thankfully we're back to status quo now, so es macht nix. --Javits2000 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I forgot to respond to your request. Perhaps I overlooked your request. I'm not sure why you're so bitter.

The vandalism is not that bad.
No one is requiring you to revert vandalism; if you got tired of dealing with it, let someone else do it.
There was nothing preventing you from ever going to WP:RFPP if you felt I was taking too long to respond.

As for me asking the previous protector about unprotecting... no, I didn't. And no, I didn't need to. The protection had been in place for over two weeks and no expiration date / time had been specified. There's no reason to ask the previous protector if it's okay to protect. On the other hand, if I wanted to unprotect the article right now, just a few hours after Allison placed the semi-protection, it would be recommended that I contact her first. Regarding your Never mind how, in a period of less than an hour, you could go from feeling that full protection was required to feeling that no protection was required statement, you should be aware that semi-protection and full protection serve two different purposes. The former is primarily for vandalism whereas the latter is primarily for halting content disputes. That's why when full protection is removed from articles, semi-protection is not put in place as a sort of "step down".

So, please stop airing your grievances in my direction. I suggest you and Bignole and Arcayne and Sa.vakilian and Mardavich stop bothering me and follow one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to solve the problems with the article; that would be far more productive. I refuse to be drawn any further into this as I'm tired of seeing every article even remotely related to Islam, Arabia, or Iran be the center of controversy. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the drama. If this diff and this diff prove anything, it's that most articles on Islam (including those on the most basic topics) are not even subjects of interest to most editors, much less "centers of controversy." Of course 300 has nothing to do with either Islam or Arabia, and the "controversy" we've been dealing with is just garden-variety nationalism of the same kind that we encounter on a lot of articles dealing with "Greece," "Serbia," et al. It's not my fault if you got drawn into it, but I have every right to criticize how you've chosen to handle it.--Javits2000 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]