User talk:Briangotts/archive 2008

Input with Saudi Arabian Jewish history

Hi Brian, hope all goes well. Maybe you can help improve the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. It links to smaller articles about Jewish tribes in the areas of present-day Saudi Arabia, such as Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, Banu Najjar, Banu Sa'ida, Banu Shutayba and they all cited sources. Now User:Bless sins is requesting "sources" for the same information about the tribes in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article, as well as making other requests for sources and whatnot. (If you like, and have a minute or two, see the discussions that have been taking place at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history.) Please help out in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian -- I left you a question on Banu Qurayza

Peace, BYT (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category Khazar Rulers

You recently undid my changes to Category:Khazar rulers where I uncategorized it as Category:Jewish royalty and Category:Turkic rulers. I realize that you act here as the watch dog for things Khazar but could you tell me

• Was every Khazar ruler Jewish? If not then you can not add Category:Jewish royalty to Category:Khazar rulers.
• Khazar rulers are already categorized as Category:Turkic rulers. There is no need to add Category:Khazar rulers as a sub category to it.
• Finally you edited Kabars by adding a sentence pointing to the possibility of some Kabar conversion to Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These people were originally Turkic Shamansts. Then you edited the discussion page to make it part of a project about Jewish history. My question to you is about your selectiveness. Why didn't you add this article to other projects regarding the other religions mentioned in the sentence you added to the article?Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Kabars are not supported by the extant scholarly sources. Mine are. Please provide a reference to WP policy for your assertion that every item in the category must be Jewish in order for the category to be linked to Jewish rulers. I am not aware of any such. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Artur Carlos de Barros Basto

Hi Brian: I came across this article: Artur Carlos de Barros Basto. It's interesting and needs some work. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO

I don't know what happened, but I've indented your second vote at 23:08 because you already voted yes at 18:09. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in Image:Britain 500 CE.png

You've made an error in this map. The Danes did not inhabit Northern Jutland in 500 CE. In fact, Northern Jutland was more core Jutish territory than any other part of Jutland, and still is. The Danes inhabited the Danish islands, until the Jutes assimilated into the Danish kingdom a couple of centuries later, and formed the Danish kingdom which came to consist of the Jutes and Jutland, the Danes and the Danish Islands, and Scania and the Scanians. Please correct this. Thank you. SenseOnes (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Khazars

Would you agree with the following compromise? I think the citations are easier to read; the fact and its source are stated with more specificity; the added ref's reflect the complexity of the Jewish-Byzantine relations and provide a better context for instances of persecution.

According to Al-Masudi many Jews fled from Byzantium as a consequence of persecution under Romanus Lakapenos. These were joined by other Jews fleeing from Sassanid Persia (particularly during the Mazdak revolts), and, later, the Islamic world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlcoh (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• No. The persecution under Lekapenos was relatively late, and Golden, Brook et al cite other persecutions. It is not reasonable to limit the scope in this way.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Again, we're looking for references supporting the specific statement "The original Jewish settlers were joined by waves of immigration fleeing persecution in the Byzantine Empire", not generally about persecutions of Jews in Byzantium. It's OK to add some references to the latter (in addition to refs supporting the specific fact) but it must be more complete than the current one to reflect the variety of scholarly opinion. Schlcoh (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• You continually ignore the references to both Golden and Brook (both of whom meticulously document their sources) to Jews fleeing Byzantine persecution to go to Khazaria. Your criticisms are simply not supported by the text of the citation in this article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I will thank you to strike your accusations of 3RR against me from the various user talk pages on which you have made them, since as I have demonstrated they are baseless. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Concerning the 3RR I don't mind apologizing if that's important to you, although I disagree my claim was incorrect in essence. Your first deletion of my edit may not have been exactly a "revert" according to the 3RR rules, but certainly that was the effect. In any case, I apologize and I'll do so in "The Evil Spartan"'s talk page. The only reason I mentioned that at that page was because "The Evil Spartan" accused me of 3RR and asked her/him what the difference from your editing was. (Incidentally, that was the only other user talk page I mentioned 3RR in connection to you. If you've seen anything like that in other talk pages I don't know how it happened, so please let me know!)

On the disputed passage, I'm also willing to leave the sentence as it is, even though the provided documentation does not justify the level of certainty suggested by the sentence(a single primary source, secondary literature, one of which if from the 1890's). Something like "According to......" would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. However, the additional references on the state of Jews in Byzantium in the reformulation I suggested earlier MUST be included. I list them here again: for general information on the status of Jews in the Byzantine Empire see e.g. Ostrogorski, G. History of the Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press (July 1986), pg. 161; Cohen, M. R. The Voice of the Poor in the Middle Ages: An Anthology of Documents from the Cairo Geniza, Princeton University Press (September 26, 2005) pg. 112; Norwich, J. J. A Short History of Byzantium. Vintage, 1998 pg. 89; Geanakoplos, D. J. Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes University Of Chicago Press; New Ed edition (February 15, 1986), pg. 268; Mango, C. (Ed) The Oxford History of Byzantium Oxford University Press, USA (December 5, 2002) pg. 13.; Browning, Robert. The Byzantine Empire. Catholic University of America Press, 1992. pg. 54; Cameron, Averil, Byzantines and Jews: some recent work on early Byzantium, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 20 (1996) 249-274 (especially 272-274) and books dealing with exactly this subject e.g. Kohen, E. History of the Byzantine Jews: A Microcosmos in the Thousand Year Empire University Press of America, 2007 and the two classics Bowman, Stephen B., Ankori, Zvi The Jews of Byzantium 1204-1453 Bloch Pub Co (December 2001); Starr, Joshua, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire 641-1204 Burt Franklin (1970); Schlcoh (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your post above is replete with factual misrepresentations and evidences a lack of familiarity with WP policies. I am not going to go through it in detail. Suffice to day that my edit was not a revert. A revert is restoring back to the way the article appeared before. Restoring and adding sources per a demand for such sources is not a revert. There is no such thing as a "kind-of" revert. If you wish to add these sources then go ahead, but please do so by putting author and page number in the footnote and then adding the full citation to the references. I do not believe that any of them contradict the main point of the paragraph; namely, that Jews were persecuted in Byzantium, that some fled from that persecution and that some of those who fled ended up in Khazaria. None of these is a controversial point. I see no reason why any of these sources must be included per your assertion. We do not list every source that ever discussed every point in every WP article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great!

Thanks for writing quickfire! I have been wondering about the name of the tradition for ages. A French professor from Rouen once told me that quickfire was one of the Norse traditions that were kept by the Norman aristocracy in Normandy. BTW, IIRC, the quickfire was the reason why the Swedish king Anund Jakob was called the "coal-burner".--Berig (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have given kveikja ("kindle") in a declined form and I have added a nominalization instead. I have been trying to find a page of Grágás online where it talks of the crime - but in vain. The important thing is that there's an English name for the article.--Berig (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quickfire

On 17 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quickfire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Brian, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein 1845-65.png

Greetings Briangotts. I notice that you've created this image, but unfortunately it seems to be based on a misunderstanding, so I'm here to ask you to delete it again. I have a feeling that you might have picked up this error from FOTW or a website copied from it, as I believe that I saw the same error there a year or so ago.

Before the 1848 war, what is now referred to as the Flag of Denmark was for all intents and purposes an insignia representing the person of the Danish monarch and used only by his army and navy but in all countries and territories under his sceptre. This position was challenged around 1843 or so when a group of pro-German separatists in Holstein and Schleswig began to advocate independence and designed several banners to symbolise their course, the most common of which was the blue-white-red tricolour now used by Germany's federal state of Schleswig-Holstein. King Christian VIII reacted somewhat in a panic and simply outlawed all other flags save his own, a decree which remains the basis for Denmark's contemporary law about the same subject.

In addition, the file name is misleading. First of all, Schl. and Holstein were not a separate legal entity before 1865 but two, and the administration in Copenhagen strongly defended that the two regions held different political statuses. This can be seen e.g. by the different legal systems used, by the fact that only Holstein was a member of the German Confederation but not Schl. or Denmark (German nationalists tried to change this) and that the administration in Copenhagen considered Schleswig to be governed by the Danish law of succession but Holstein by the Salic law. These different statuses was one of the most important reasons for the outbreak of the 1848-51 war. So the flag shown here is simply the Danish monarch's own flag, as used by his army and navy in Denmark, Holstein and Schleswig, it is a not a stylistic duplicate of it used by a different legal entity. As I've seen others pick up the error that this was a flag with a legal status of its own, please delete this image again to avoid further confusion. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What you say about Schleswig and Holstein as separate entities makes sense. However, when you say that the white Scandinavian cross flag was not the flag of these territories because it was only the flag of the Danish monarch, are we not quibbling over semantics? We identify the Danish flag as the "Flag of Denmark" despite the fact that, as you point out, it was the flag of the Danish monarch and Denmark as a nation had no flag per se. by the same token wouldn't it be the flag of the Duke of Schleswig and Holstein, in the person of the Danish king? As you note, the flag was in use in those territories and all other flags were banned. It seems to me that if what you are saying is true, the proper remedy is an explanatory note in the page of the flag rather than outright deletion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The image description can be fixed and I've done so, but the file name remains problematic. The phrase Schleswig-Holstein in this context conveys the impression that the image has to do with the secessionist administration which used this name, but which outlawed all use of this flag and the colour combination red/white. The Copenhagen administration talked of "Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg" (if one supported the union/status quo) or alternatively "Denmark and Schleswig" / "Holstein and Lauenburg" (if pro-Danish). The phrase "Schleswig-Holstein" was used if one was pro-independence. Secondly, the year 1865 cannot be correct, as Denmark formally surrendered the territories to Prussia and Austria in 1864, and the Danish flag would not have been used in Holstein after 1863, nor in Schleswig after Denmark was kicked out of the province by early 1864. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are ok with a description fix, then what name would you suggest for the file? I am amenable to changing it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the image description because the former text was incorrect (not one duchy, but two major ones and one minor one, and not a separate flag approved by an entity named "Schleswig-Holstein"). We already have "Flag of Denmark.svg" which is used throughout Wikipedia, so I don't see the increased informative value in keeping this image. During Danish rule, Holstein, Lauenburg and Schleswig had no authority to adopt flags of their own. They were ruled by an absolute monarch and absolutism in the Danish context meant in both theory and practice that the monarch held all actual authority and power. His flag was used exclusively from the 18th century - 1843/44 when it became rivalled by the blue-white-red tricolour and a few other flags. These were suppressed by 1845 and the Danish flag was used exclusively 1845-48. In 1848-51 the tricolour returned as the flag of an aspiring state which was dissolved in 1851, after which the Danish flag again was the only flag allowed, and this situation lasted till 1863/64 when both the tricolour and the Austrian / Prussian flags were used. I can't imagine an easy file name that conveys more information than plain "Flag of Denmark". Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What you say is not unreasonable, but I don't think I have authority to simply delete the file. You should put it up for deletion, and restate your arguments here. I will not oppose it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK Db-author applies to both text and images but I might be wrong. I simply noticed that you were an admin and IFD seems to have been overworked for some time. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deuteronomy issue rereloadedJews chosing their own hangman

Hello, maybe you are interested in this issue. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes

Hi Brian. I know that you don't often edit runic articles, but I thought you might have some opinions to share in a new work group that I have started.--Berig (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Any suggestions and opinions from you will be most welcome!--Berig (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about Image:Hephthalite.png

Hi Brian. Do you remember whom your sources were for your Hephthalite map? I'm getting ready to update Image:East-Hem_500ad.jpg and documenting my sources, but I haven't seen those borders in any other maps of the Hephthalites. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, that should help. I don't think I've found any maps with borders similar to my "DK Atlas" either. Anyway, thank you Brian, and good luck with the move! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alius Rex

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alius Rex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alius Rex

I have nominated Alius Rex, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alius Rex. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Olvir Hnufa

Nice article! I have googled for other primary sources but I am afraid I can't find any. However, his name is interesting and according to one theory it means "priest of the shrine".--Berig (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My source is Lena Peterson's Nordisk runnamnslexikon ("Nordic lexicon of names in runic inscriptions"). -Vir means "man" but öl- is more mysterious. Peterson writes that some scholars have considered öl to be a cognate of the Gothic alhs ("temple") and the meaning of Ölvir would be "priest of the shrine/sanctuary". The literature she has used for the name in her lexicon is Widmark 1965, 1991 s. 48, 58, Kousgård Sørensen 1989b s. 8, 11 f.--Berig (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. It just struck me that Ölvir was what the master of the household called himself while administering the Álfablót, the sacrifice to the Elves. That makes the meaning "priest of the shrine" seem quite convincing, IMHO.--Berig (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ancient Egypt

Why is Zerida part of this WikiProject when she has been banned for sockpuppetry: [1]? As an aside, how does one join this project anyway? As for me, I created the articles on Neferneferuaten, Tutkheperre Shoshenq and made substantial sourced additions to Takelot I, Shoshenq II and Khendjer among others. I usually work alone. Just curious, that's all. Regards, Fabian Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK suggestion Olvir Hnufa

Hi Brian. I enjoyed the article and left some comments about minor tweaks on the DYK suggestions page. Cheers,--Rosiestep 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Olvir Hnufa DYK

On 9 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Olvir Hnufa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP AH

This user wants you to join
WikiProject
Alternate History.

Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the names of the Maltese village articles

There is currently an ongoing debate about whether the articles on Maltese villages should be given their English names. Kyarichy has already gone and renamed a bunch of articles such as as Kalkara citing these changes from an old obsolete paper and http://www.geody.com, even though these names are no longer in use.

The naming conventions clearly state that foreign location names commonly used in English should be used as the article names.

It would be appreciated if you could assist us in this discussion. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 10:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Norse history and culture

Hi! I've left a message on the project talk, but thought, since the talk isn't particularly active, that I'd send out a few talk page messages as well.

Basically, I've taken on the WikiProject section of the Wikipedia:Signpost, and would like to interview everyone about WP:WikiProject Norse history and culture, preferably on the talk page. I'd then edit it down a bit into a newspaper-style article, and link the original discussion at the bottom.

If you'd be interested in participating, could you let me know, either on my talk page, or at the Wikiproject's? Thanks!

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll set this up on the project talk =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice map

Good job on the map you just added to the Hammer and Cross article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tryggve the Pretender, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Magdiel

Since you first created the page in reference to Edomites mentioned in Genesis, subsequent edits added divergent content – though nothing about the quite notable moshava of that name (now absorbed into Hod Hasharon), which has a good-sized page in the Hebrew Wikipedia. I took the initiative to split the English-language pages according to content, retaining your initial material on the following pages:

• Magdiel as background info on the place name
• Magdiel (disambiguation) with the Genesis citation

(There's also a page for Magdiel (school), without Edomite content :-)
What I did not do was create yet another page for the Edomites with this name. If you see fit, please follow through. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Olaf the Peacock

Great article! I made a few edits that I hope you won't object to.--Berig (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Assyriology

• Dear Sir, Assyriology isn't my interest, Egyptology is. However, I saw this flickr image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shadowgate/346666569/ and I was wondering 1) what it was? and 2) whether Wikipedia would be better of with this image? The license allows it to be placed on Commons...but I don't want to upload something people don't need. Since I don't know what it is, I don't know how to catalogue it. Its from the Gulbenkian museum in Portugal and looks Assyrian to me and is a pretty decent picture. Leoboudv (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what it is either. The label on the picture is unhelpful. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Do you know a trusted contributor on the Assyriology Wiki Project who might know the answer about the identity of this object or whether the picture is needed on Wikipedia? I could then ask this person about his or her opinion here. Its very rare that such a unique picture is freely licensed on flickr. Thank You, sir. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try User:Šarukinu. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Unfortunately he seems to be away. He hasn't made an edit since mid-June 2008 according to this. By the Way, you have a User Nareklm listed in the Wiki Project Assyria page. Just one problem: he has been banned for abusive sockpuppetry. User Djaser at the top of the list hasn't made an edit since March 2007. That's why I don't know whom to contact (except an Admin like you). The flickr image of the Assyrian relief could be used for an article on Wikipedia...if only someone knew who it depicted. I guess it can be tough finding an expert in this field Mr Gotts. Leoboudv (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

These users are pretty knowledgeable and may be able to identify the subject of the picture:

• User:Chaldean
• User:Dbachmann
• User:Wetman

See this image: Image:Stitched an.jpg - it appears to have the same winged men as in your picture, identified as Annunaki. Hope this is helpful. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I know Dbachman a little. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Olaf the Peacock, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rognvald "Olafsson"

I never came across Ragnvald Olafsson either. So how do you feel about moving Ragnvald Olafsson? Franklin and Shepard have him as "Rogvolod" and "Ragnvaldr". Both seem quite popular on Google books, so it's just a case of deciding which you prefer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to say that Olaf the Peacock gets a few mentions in Byock's Viking Age Iceland, if you can get hold of that. If not, let me know and I can add a little bit. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete image

Dear Mr. Gotts, As an Admin, could you please delete this image on Wikipedia: Image:CleopatraVII.jpg as redundant? I have just moved it to Commons under another name here: [2] I couldn't use the same name on Commons because it was occupied by a coin of Cleopatra VII there. Thank You --Leoboudv (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your help Mr. Gotts. By the way, if I didn't tell you this Dbachman made excellent use of that Assyrian Winged genie image from the Gulbenkian collection for this nice new article. With kind Regards, Fabian --Leoboudv (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct non-free license

Dear Sir, I uploaded this non-free image for the article on the famous Israel or Merneptah Stele here: Image:Israel stela1.jpg I think it is a 3D work of art. If I have chosen the wrong non-free license, pls feel free to change it....because I usually only upload Commons images and am unsure about non-free pictures. Its virtually impossible to find a free image of this object which is in the Cairo museum where all photography has been banned. I have to leave now since its 3 AM. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

According to my understanding of copyright law, your upload is ok. It is being used for scholarly discussion in a limited way, and the museum cannot claim any financial harm from its use in any case. But you should know that there are a lot of obsessive, paranoid types on WP who will try to get rid of any nonfree image no matter how justified its inclusion is. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I looked on Commons and flickr and found nothing at all on the stela....I suppose everyone was 'obsessed' with taking photos of the Tut treasures. If someone in future wants to delete my non-fair image for the Merneptah/Israel stela, then so be it. However, there won't be a replacement image of it, that's for sure. As an aside, who are these 'obsessive, paranoid types' which you mention? Would they perchance be the actual copyright holders of the non-free images which are used here? Personally, I hate making fair use claims for images, but I just could not find an image of this critical document--the first recorded mention of Israel in history--anywhere. And the 2005 Cairo museum photo ban has cut off any future images of the stela sadly--Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have actually never heard of an actual copyright holder complaining of a fair use image used in WP (doesn't mean it didn't happen). What I was referring to was a dispute I had over an image of two Khazar coins that I used in that article- the pictures were from the Swedish numismatic museum. A certain user challenged the coins on reliable source grounds, and then when he was shown that the images were indeed properly sourced per WP requirements, he then claimed copyright violation. He managed to wrangle up enough people who were so terrified of being accused of copyvio that the images were removed. The Swedish museum in question never asserted that they had any problem with the images. If they had, they would have simply had to send a cease letter and the image would be removed at their request. They could never have claimed damages because there were none. User:Ghirlandajo has had similar problems, and there are others. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I see what you mean. A Khazar coin or two would have brought the article more to life. I don't know why this user was obsessed about the image since it was claimed under fair use. I suppose another solution would be to contact someone on Swedish WP to see if they could visit the museum and take a picture and upload it on Commons...but really who has time for a hassle like this. Its unfortunate but life is not always fair sadly. As for my picture, lets just say if someone wants to delete it, I won't cry over spilled milk here. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Historical Atlas

Hi Briangotts,

There is a revival in the WikiProject Historical Atlas. So, if you are interested, you are welcome to join.Daanschr (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging Russian projects into one project - your input requested

Hi, you are receiving this message as you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian history. I have made a proposal to merge several Russian related projects into WP:RUSSIA. You can view the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russian_history#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project. As a member of the Russian history project, your input is requested; so that all editors are reading off the same page please limit discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. We all look forward to your input. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tomam

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tomam, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Sandstein  12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Bering the same person as Wiglaf?

Can you please confirm it? This relates to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Berig 2. Thank you. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Vasilyev's theory in Khazars

I suspect you may have undone my edit because i did not finish making the right features into my citation link (just did not have enough time - now it is all correct there); but the mention of Vasilyev's hypothesis need to be sourced as per Wikipedia:Citing sources -- otherwise it ought to be deleted.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is obvious that such modifier of time as "recently (hypothesized)" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Brian, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My assessment drive

Hi, I have started to assess the articles in the Norse history and culture project, and the articles A to E are now finished. If you feel that I have wrongly assessed any of them, don't hesitate to change the assessment.--Berig (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice!!! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Denialist Hate Speech

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Norse History and Culture Assessement Drive

Hey, over the past few months, Berig and I have been attempting to assess all the unassessed articles tagged with the Wikiproject banner. This is a very time consuming process and with around a thousand left, I would much appreciate your help. Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Will definitely help as able! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with juvenlie wikipedian

I added some tags to a few star wars fan film (mainly reference and plot tags, a few notability tags) articles and 2 merge proposals, Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB into THX 1138 (since it was a theatrical adaption of his student film) and 6-18-67 into Mackenna's Gold since its a quasi documentary of said movie. However User:MikeWazowski undid almost all of them and is fighting over it. All the articles have no references but he removed the reference tags. They don't have notability, and/or are all plot noting else, out went the plot tags and according to him 1:42:08 is notable just because George Lucas made it, nothing else matters. Who's right? And why do Star Wars fan films get better treatment than real films and TV Shows? Just because they have more fans on their side? 74.13.109.25 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the personal attack above - please remember WP:CIVIL. And I'll repeat what I said - you added notability tags to nearly every Star Wars fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when all of them have survived AfDs to establish their notbility - some of them several times. And as I also told you, WP:MOVIE establishes that the Lucas short films are notable enough for separate article based on their historical significance as well as the contributions of Lucas. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Where in movie does it say that for the second time??? "ALL GEORGE LUCAS WORK IS GOD AND NOTABLE" wasn't listed. And what about the 2 merging ones hmmm? 74.13.109.25 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB clearly meets criterion #1, #2, #3, possibly #4, and definitely #5 listed at WP:MOVIE. So that alone, regardless of the Lucas connection, is enough to render your merge argument invalid. 6-18-67 clearly meets #2 under "other evidence of notability", which again renders your merge argument invalid. You may personally believe that the fanfilm articles are not notable, but you're disregarding that the actual non-notable articles have already been deleted, and these pages on Wikipedia are the ones that survived on their merits. As an apparent new editor with a limited edit history, it would behoove you to read back on various page histories before blindly posting incorrect tags in regards to notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. The addition of erroneous templates to articles is considered vandalism, and I could report you at the vandalism noticeboard. -- IRP ☎ 17:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WHATS ERRORONEOUS? I'm trying to help. They have NO references, so I tagged as no references ditto for plot and notability. Whats wrong? I am genuinely asking here. Why do large fanbase items like Star Trek and Star Wars get away with all kinds of stuff like this? Star Wars fan film articles that had notability and references I left alone (I even expanded one and added a reference i knew of) Why remove plot and reference tags? Why not just the notability tags? 74.13.109.25 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the post by MikeWazowski above. -- IRP ☎ 17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the references and plot tags? They were justified. or the merging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.109.25 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat what MikeWazowski said: "And as I also told you, WP:MOVIE establishes that the Lucas short films are notable enough for separate article based on their historical significance as well as the contributions of Lucas.". So there's the answer to your question. Now, this tag was suitable for the article, that's why that particular edit was not reverted. -- IRP ☎ 17:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ther're just paragraph long stubs. They can fit in the other articles. If he disagrees wouldn't the correct thing to do be to say so on the discussion for said merges? all my refrence tag and plot tags were removed at least once by him too. 74.13.109.25 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say so on the appropriate talk pages. And stubs or no, the subjects exist as separate entities, and are notable as separate entities. Your merge proposals were unnecessary, which is why they were removed and/or reverted. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to discuss it on the article's talk page. That should help settle the content dispute. -- IRP ☎ 17:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't leaving the merge tags make it more noticeable too how else would most know a merge was suggested? Mike undid everything (almost) that i tagged and said i used "wrong tags" and how about 1 article covering ALL of Lucas' student/short films since most are short articles anyways? Also I still stand by Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB into THX 1138, Its moving the prototype into the final product more or less. 74.13.109.25 (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain to you several times, your merge proposals were unnecessary, and would never have happened, as there was and is no reason for the merge. Someone searching for the Lucas student films will be searching by the individual film names, not some hypothetical "Lucas student films" catch-all title. Since the merges were unnecessary and would never have happened, the tags were incorrect, and I would remove them as such again should they reappear. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And as a matter of curiosity, as an apparent new editor with no username and no edit history past today, and no apparent connection to this administrator, how did this discussion come to this talkpage? Do you have an actual username? Your knowledge of wikipedia templates suggests a prior editor, and if you wish to avoid suspicions of sockpuppetry, I would suggest logging in under a proper username. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats why god invented redirects. and "and I would remove them as such again should they reappear." sounds rather impolite. And would "George Lucas Student Films" not be to odd a leap? And I went to admin and at random clicked this one. I've always edited this way, I've never had a username and don't plan one getting one. I don't remember it being mandatory (since I can edit without logging in why get an account?) 74.13.109.25 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Informing you that incorrect merges will be reverted is a matter of policy. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing making them incorrect is you don't like the idea. Instead of removing tags doesn't policy say to discuss on the talk page for said articles? 74.13.109.25 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that I and IRP have informed you that WP:MOVIE shows that your merge proposal is unnecessary, and therefore incorrect. I posted my reasoning on the appropriate talk pages. The simple fact is that your merge proposals were in error. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And the fact you two say it is but YOU won't give me one damn line that says why, you just say it says so I ask where you say WP:MOVIE just says so. Ill ask again , WHERE IN WP:MOVIE DOES IT SAY THAT?!?! 74.13.109.25 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Had you actually bothered to read my responses, you will notice that this edit above laid out my reasons almost an hour ago, and IRP also pointed that out to you. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend this, as we've made it very plain - but the simple fact is that WP:MOVIE supports my line of reasoning, and does not support yours. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My turn:

• 1. The film is widely distributed 'and' has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. (widely distributed maybe, but only as a bonus feature not on its own what critics, 1 down)
• 2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

• Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. (no, or not listed)
• The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. (again no)
• The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. (iffy, since it wasn't a commercial release but as a bonus feature on the movie I want to merge it into)
• The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.(again no, or not listed)

• 3.The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. (maybe "The film won the United States National Student Film Festival in 1968, in the Drama category.")

• 4.The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. (if it was AGAIN the article doesn't mention any of that)

• 5.The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. (What school, again article doesn't say)

So verdict sounds like a merge (to a "George Lucas Student Films" article or THX 1138) is more correct to me. :) 74.13.109.25 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As for 1:42:08 it seems to fail ALL criteria. not released, no referenced articles, not deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, no awards, no national archive, and if it is taught article doesn't say so. 74.13.109.25 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgot 6-18-67, under "Other evidence of notability" I assume you are going for "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." but it fails that because of "and is a major part of his/her career." It's a tiny not worth mentioning part of his career, however it, again, would be good for a "George Lucas Student Films and Short Films" article and/or as a section in Mackenna's Gold since it is a documentary/making of for said movie. Same with Bald: The Making of THX 1138, Freiheit (short film) and Filmmaker (film). 74.13.109.25 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)