Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 7 July 2006

For discussion prior to 1/1/06, see the Archives:

• User talk:Briangotts/archive 2005
• User talk:Briangotts/archive 2006

I will generally respond to comments on the commentor's talk page.

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 08:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. So what usually ends up happening is that the article on Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Many, but by no means all, of the JE articles brought over to Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

If you're asking whether I think Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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 "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice", such cross-posting should adhere to the guidelines laid out in Misplaced Pages's internal spamming article. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Misplaced Pages'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₪»  19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page is incredible, considering postings here Misplaced Pages: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)

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₪»  20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that I sent the message only to people I know and have collaborated with on Misplaced Pages, 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)

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₪»  20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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 20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa

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

Vfd and Vfm

Hi Briangotts, please see

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jews_and_Judaism
• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Books_critical_of_Judaism

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

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)

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)

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)

Barnstar

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

Cfd

Hi Briangotts, please see:

• Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Briangotts! I have created Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 ) 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 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

RfA Thank you

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)

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)