User talk:Briangotts/archive 2005

Welcome

Hey, thanks a lot for all the work you've been doing on Khazars. It's an interesting subject, and I'm glad to see someone knowledgeable tackle it.

I hope you like Wikipedia and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself. You might also want to check out the Tutorial. It gives all kinds of basic info for new contributors.

If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 18:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Khazars in fiction

Hi Brian, I have restored Khazars in fiction to its previous content. Thank you for confirming that its use has been granted by the copyright owner. Please make sure that the message from the owner remains on the article's talk page so that future editors are aware of the copyright situation. Cheers! Carrp | Talk 12:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suar-related articles

Hi! Articles about Suars need improvements? There are the information from Tatar Encyclopaedia, which was published in Russian and Tatar in 2001 in Kazan.

--Untifler 20:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You want to by it by post? (it is hard to by it even in Kazan). It could be useful if you understand Russian. But in is only in one-volume edition, so all information is limited. --Untifler 21:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tatarstan Republic Academy of Sciences' Institution of Tatar Encyclopaedia, 2002 This is a publishing information for Tatar Encyclopaedia. M.b. different articles, which are about different objects (people, city and duchy) should not be merged, but I think, that Suars could be merged with Sabirs, because in some Tatar sources is said that Suars was only branch of Sabirs and their name changed due to pronoinciation of surrounding peoples. Another variant is Suvars. As for mistakes, I hope that you will correct it as it needs! --Untifler 21:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Threats

(This thread relates to disputes over the categorization of Bulgars in the Category "Turkic peoples".)

Using threats to further a point of view is scarcely the best way to approach any of the editors here. Behaving as if your own version is the best and ond only possible is a bit childish. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it., this stays below any page in Wikipedia and contrary to what you might think, it regards you, as well. Please, stop reverting the category, you are misleading readers to accept one of the explanations about the origin of the Bulgars. VMORO 15:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, to suggest that I was "threatening" is a total mischaracterization. What I said was that rather than engage in a pointless revert war I would ask that the site administrators arbitrate the issue (as per Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Requesting_an_advocate). This is quite different from threatening, which I note that you have been known to do in the past (e.g. "If you don't leave this article alone now, there will be 'sudden' outburst of vandalism against Romanian articles, this is final warning") You yourself concede that Turkic origin is one theory about the Bulgars. Linguistically it is the only theory accepted by most scholars. I refer you to the works of M.I. Artamanov, Runciman, David Christian, and D. Dmitrov (himself a Bulgarian) to name only a few. However, even if there are other theories worthy of consideration, Bulgars deserve a mention among the Turkic peoples category. Your accusation that I am trying to foist my views is totally ludicrous. I did not edit the article itself. The various theories are all in there. You are free to add the Bulgars to whatever other category (Slavic peoples, Iranian peoples, etc.) you wish. By repeatedly deleting Bulgars from the category you are attempting to force your ethnopolitical views on the article in the same manner you accuse me of. The notice "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it" cuts both ways, my friend.

To avoid more pointless fighting and reversions, I propose the following:

• • 1. On the "Turkic peoples" category page, I will add the following note:

Many of these peoples' origins are still being debated. For example, while most linguists classify Proto-Bulgarian as a Turkic language, others have disputed this classification and point to Iranic and other linguistic features. Likewise, the Avars and Hephthalites are sometimes classified as Mongolic, Iranic or even Tocharian in origin. Finally, some people listed, such as the Golden Horde, were in part or in whole Mongolian in origin, yet are included in this category because they adopted Turkic languages.

• • 2. Bulgars goes back in the "Turkic peoples" category.

As a gesture of good will I have implemented #1 already. You are welcome to suggest modifications to the language. I ask that you return the Bulgars article to the Turkic peoples category within 48 hours, and I will consider the matter closed. If you do not, I will begin proceedings outlined under Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution.

--Briangotts 14:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, I am not trying to impose any "ethnopolitical views" on anything. What's more, I don't have any such "views", I am not supporting any of the theories regarding the origin of the Bulgars. However, since there is a controversy about it, the article should either be placed in none of the two, conflicting categories, or in both of them. Sounds logical, doesn't it? And since you insist so much on their inclusion in the Turkic category, they should also be included in the Iranian one. Thank you. VMORO 15:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)~

• • • You know, I really don't care to argue with you. You clearly have chosen your side in the debate, it is the side not supported by the majority of linguists, and you promote your views through intimidation and threats. Be that as it may. I have added Bulgars to Turkic peoples. Feel free to add them to the Category:Iranian peoples if you wish. I will not stop you or remove them from that category. If others wish to rais the issue with you, that is their concern. I consider the matter resolved. --Briangotts 00:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No one has made you argue with me, please don't act like an angry child. Yes, and I have added the category Iranian peoples. It is true that the older theory is that of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars but until as late as 60-70 years ago, all nomadic peoples were considered Turkic and both Bulgars and Magyars were associated with the Huns. To say nothing of the fact that at least until the end of WWII linguists did not have an especially clear idea of what the Bulgar language looked like. For the last 20 years, there has been a reversal and all newer books and textbooks, at least in Bulgaria, address them as Pamirian, this view has also started to gain recognition abroad. However, this is not the point: the point is that there is a controvery about their origin. The rest has already been said. VMORO 21:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)~

I am not responding to this individual any longer but I could not let his comments go on this page without a final note. I have read a lot of materials on the subject and I have seen no scholarly work that associates the proto-Bulgar language with the Pamir group, except radical, Bulgarian nationalist propaganda that seeks to minimize associations with Turkey. Be that as it may, I never had any objection to this individual putting up his Pamir theory, or with linking the Bulgar article to the Iranian peoples category. What I objected to were his repeated attempts to remove the Bulgars from the Turkic category, on the grounds that there was "dispute" about their linguistic origin. He has a history of bullying other Wikipedia authors, including administrators of this site, and of making various threatening comments, which history is readily viewable here. I encourage serious linguists to evaluate his claims and, where applicable, correct them. --Briangotts 00:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Samaritan Aramaic

Hello! An article stating that Samaritan Aramaic is a variety of Aramaic spoken by Samaritans isn't really an article but a circular statement. I've redirected it to the main Aramaic article for the time being, but if you can add any info regarding the differences between the two languages and other facts, by all means feel free to do so. Since ancient languages seems to be your forte, I'm confident that you'll do just that. Best, Lucky 6.9 18:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The only reason I created a separate "Samaritan Aramaic" article is because the article on the Samaritans, which I did not write, referenced it. I noticed this while putting together the Samartian category. At some point I may try and learn enough about Samaritan Aramaic to write an article; in the meantime, I think the redirect is sufficient. Thanks!--Briangotts 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cool beans. Thanks for getting back to me. Signing off for now... - Lucky 6.9 18:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kimek Khanate

I think it will be also interesting for you.

Another question. do you know some about concret adaptation of Hebrew script to Turkic languages? (It is interesting for me)

Why Karaims were merged with Karaite Judaism? Under the Soviet rule Karaims was viewed as independend ethnos, but Krymchak was viewed as part of Jews. The survival of Karaims during WW2 in Crimea also was interesting... Could you resque an information about it in English and place to wiki (I want to translate in to Tatar) --Untifler 16:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Good job! Can you look into the Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria to improve it? As for source, all of tyhem is undoubtefull, but I think you have much more information about it :). If ou have anoth free time, could you improve Bashkir article, espetially about history of Bashkiria (before 12000s)?

Arthur Koestler' The Thirteenth Tribe

Wikipedia would probably strongly benefit from an article written about Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe; it's claims, plagiarism, etc. Do you think you'd be up to writing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I don't have time at the moment but in the next couple of weeks hopefully I can start one. --Briangotts 16:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your vote

I'd like to urge you to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, as it is based on a misconception. Censorship is not the issue. The article is a POV fork, and needs to be re-merged into the Anti-globalization article.  :) — Helpful Dave 18:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My vote stands. I found the arguments for deletion unconvincing. My review of the article found it to be quite fair. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by this message, or how many others you have contacted. I don't think this sort of politicking is appropriate. You are entitled to your opinion, and if the majority agree the article will be deleted. Please do not attempt to foist your views on me. --Briangotts 15:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Briangotts 15:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Please read the instructions at the bottom of WP:VFD for how to list an article on VFD. Thanks! —msh210 18:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Khazars

Thanks for notifying me that the article is on featured article candidates. If it succeeds, it'll only be the second article I've worked on to get that distinction. In it's current state I can't vote in favor of it. It's a great resource for scholars, but it's not yet a great Wikipedia article. Don't take it personally. If I've got time this weekend, I'll take a try at smoothing out some of the rough edges. You might also want to try listing on peer review. Those folks always have good suggestions, and they have a good history of helping get articles up to featured status. Happy editing, Isomorphic 19:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Maximum info" has limits. An article like United Nations can't possibly contain all the relevant information available on its subject. The main article on any subject is intended to stand alone and serve as a fairly consise general introduction. "See main article:X" is used to direct a reader to more information, but only if the reader is interested in that particular subtopic. We don't expect that most readers will actually read all the spin-off articles, and that's fine.

Don't forget that Wikipedia is intended for everyone. As much as possible, physicists and auto mechanics should be able to read articles on history and art, while artists and historians should be able to read articles on cars and physics. We often fail to reach that lofty goal (many of our mathematics articles are opaque even to math students) but we do try. Featured articles in particular are expected to reach a general audience, since we'd like to put them on the Main Page for all to see.

Like I said, I'll try to do some smoothing myself, and definitely do try the Peer Review people. Isomorphic 20:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I Left some comments on the FAC nom. Nice work so far... +sj + 22:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimean Goths

Hi Briangotts, I think you have written a very good article on the Crimean Goths. Although, I understood what you meant, I preferred to change the phrasing ancestral homelands, since I am working on articles concerning earlier ancestral homelands.--Wiglaf 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. However, "temporary homeland" didn't sound right either. Is it temporary if the Goths lived there for a few centuries before moving on? And it certainly wasn't temporary for the ones who stayed in the Crimea. I've changed the wording to a more neutral "those that remained in the lands around the Black Sea, especially in the Crimea." OK with you? --Briangotts 14:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine by me.--Wiglaf 14:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Proposal to Merge Hanilgabat with Mitanni

you attached a merge tag to this article; however, the Hanilgalbat, Mitanni/Maitani and Hurri section of this article argues that the 2 articles are different topics, & should be kept separate. Until this the points in this article are at least discussed, wouldn't it be wiser to delay this merge? -- llywrch 16:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I still feel like there is too much duplicative information between the two articles (kings' names etc.) There are also some inaccurate assertions (e.g., that Hurrian is an Indo-Euro language. I don't have time (and probably lack the expertise) to do the merge myself in any case. I felt though that the issue should be raised. --Briangotts 17:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is needlessly duplicate material between the two articles. However, before they are merged, the subject should be discussed; that was my point. (And I was trying to express it in a manner that was not accusatory; I'm sorry if you felt my tone was otherwise.) -- llywrch 18:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. You have valid points. I agree with you that there should be discussion. --Briangotts 20:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 19:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image on VfD

Howdy. You appear to be trying to list Image:100 7065.JPG on VfD; however, it hasn't worked. WP:IFD is the proper place to nominate images and other media for deletion. If you don't mind, I'll fix the VfD page. android↔talk 03:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza collaboration

I would be happy to help you on this article.

Guy Montag 22:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that other readers would find this article pov in some parts. To preempt them, I suggest we use the pbs source. http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

Guy Montag 22:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It may be whitewash, but we must include it in some parts of the narrative to keep it NPOV. See what is salvagable from the pbs source and include it.

Guy Montag 06:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute with your version; two editors have claimed it is POV and one of them is proposing an entirely new version. You might want to get involved on the Talk: page there: Talk: Banu Qurayza. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've petitioned for arbitration against Yuber

[1]

I hope you join in as an arbiter.

Guy Montag 07:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I have noticed, you are on the arbitration committee. Perhaps you can cite your opinion with regards to Yuber's non cooperative style of editing. I have grown tired of policing his edits and his inability to accept either other's criticism of his combative pov style or his more often than not, irrelevent pov editing that he so often defends, even after half a dozen different editors have told him that he isn't making any friends by acting the way he has. You generally post in the same catagory of articles as me, mainly those relating to the Middle East. If you had any experience with Yuber's editing, I would appreciate if you make add your comments.

Guy Montag 03:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually not on the arbitration committee, I recently joined the member's advocate group. I'll have to take a look at those rules and see how I can help. Something definitely needs to be done about that fellow. --Briangotts 12:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case is about to be taken up, its 3 to 1 against, and the lady who was against said she'll change her mind if more evidence is provided (this was at the very beginning of the case). Should be anytime now.

Guy Montag 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

cfd: Category:Jewish rulers

Hi Brian, Category:Jewish rulers has been listed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Jewish rulers [2] Thanks. IZAK 06:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CE

not really, If you really want you can go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention and report him as a vandal. My suggestion is to just ignore it though unless it becomes a problem. If there's anything else I can do to help don't hesitate to drop me a note. Jtkiefer 03:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

He managed to delete BCE/CE references from almost 300 articles in 3 hours or so. At one point he was hitting 4 articles a minute; I thought he was a bot. In any event, his theoretical reason for deleting was because the references were superfluous, but his actual edits show something else. These anons show up on Wikipedia from time to time; they take great offence at BCE/CE notation, and proceed to try to delete as many references to them as they can. He claims he will be back to delete AD references as well, but I find this doubtful, given the fact that he never bothered to do so on any of the articles he edited when he removed BCE/CE, and in fact added AD references to articles in place of CE. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I didn't see him put AD over CE; in the articles on my watchlist, he just deleted CE." - here are a couple of examples: [3] [4] He also removed CE from pages but left AD in. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Radhanites

Sure, it is a fascinating subject!--Wiglaf 19:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll look at it in more detail soon, but I would say on first read-thru the thing that would be most helpful for the article would be for it to have explicit footnotes for the various statements made in it, rather than general references. E.g. Bendiner, Elmer The Rise and Fall of Paradise, pp. 48-50. I can show you how to make pretty footnotes if you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are two different styles for doing it; you'll find one at Qana, and the other at Dhimmi. The style at Dhimmi numbers itself, but some people don't like the way it looks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gurjara

I started an article on the Gurjara in order to address this "most wanted article." I'm unsure of the relationship between them and the Gujjars - are they the same group? You would likely have more insight than I. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 15:08, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response - guess I'll have to do more research! -- BD2412 ^talk 21:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Kettil Flatnose

Hi Briangotts, nice article! I will work on it in due time. At the moment I am trying to finish the Fornaldarsagas, which is a vast matter. I guess, when I am finished I can flest out the article on Kettil Flatnose.--Wiglaf 12:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rus

You seem to know very much on the Middle East. I am having a dispute with User:Ghirlandajo, who insists that the Rus' who attacked Berdaa, in the early 10th century were not Varangians but Slavs. Do you have anything to add on the matter? I hate being called a nationalist, so I'd rather someone who is less ethnically connected to the matter have a look, see Talk:Igor of Kiev.--Wiglaf 12:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It is great to know that there are people like you around at Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 23:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sturlunga saga

There is a book that you might be able to loan in a library: Sturlunga Saga. 2 vols. Translated by Julia H. McGrew, and R. George Thomas. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc.,1974., otherwise, I have no clue. I am myself trying to find online translations of the sagas.--Wiglaf 23:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw that book but it's extremely expensive. I'll have to check if it's in our library here (I doubt it). For translations of other sagas, have you tried Northvegr?

Thanks, yes I am using that site, but it is not exhaustive.--Wiglaf 28 June 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Samaritan

Thanks for photos! Vuvar1 23:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments on User page and Tatarstan history

Thanks a lot :)! --Untifler 29 June 2005 12:12 (UTC) ps. I passed all exams in university and I hope, that now I have much more free time to upload some information about Tatarstan history. But I also have a some request to you: could you renovate the resume about Tatarstan's history?

Sorry... I meaned those short historical review at the Tatarstan article. --Untifler 4 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)

Hi! I'd "created" History of Tatarstan. Could you look at this compilation? Some information from Tatarstan article also should be placed there, but an English language native speaker needs :) Thanks! --Untifler 9 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Suicide bombing

Sigh. I wish they read the policies first before editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

Still at it; what a mess! Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

User:155.232.250.19

I've been on it already, and I think I've cleaned up most of the mess. It was also using User:155.232.250.35. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

Jomsvikings

Excellent start, and very interesting! In fact, I have been thinking of writing that article myself for some time :). I will certainly add some info to the page on what is found in the sagas, but when it concerns the historicity it depends on archaeology and I think no one really knows where it was located.

The only archaeological support I know of are three runestones mentioning the battle on the Fyrisvellir between the Jomsvikings under Styrbjörn the Strong and Eric the Victorious in 984 or 985, but even that is not widely recognized.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

He was a good contributor at Sigrid the Haughty.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

I have added the part I know best. Feel free to modify it, as I may have given it too much place. BTW, I live on the plain where the battle is said to have taken place.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

A Book tip

There is a book I am sure you would love to read. Its English name is The Long Ships.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I will certainly read Byzantium :).--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting book! I haven't read a book for pleasure for a long time, and I'll keep an eye open for it.--Wiglaf 8 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Szekely

You have added Szekelys to Eurasian nomads category. Szekelys have settled some 1000 years ago in the same place they still inhabit today. In the article there is not much info on their nomadic past. Could you explain your reasons for adding it to this category? Also, you are welcome to add info on their history. Akiss 8 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites

I wouldn't mind its being taken off, but perhaps we should try to reason a bit longer with its disputant. My guess is that he just doesn't understand a few details, that are hampering his ability to realize that they're Jews...not the least of which is that you don't have to be able to trace your lineage back to Adam to be a Jew. Let it run its course. If he simply refuses to get it within a week, we can take up the discussion at that point. Meanwhile, anyone who sees the disputed tag has a quick way of seeing what the dispute is about, and they may learn a lot more from reading the talk page than just the article itself anyways. Kol tov. -Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

You're welcome! I hope I was of some help.--Wiglaf 20:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Joke articles

Which articles were you referring to? ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

They, along with Onan ben Drusoy, were supposed to have been deleted with this: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Mahadreck, but they got lost in the confustion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See also this message board: [5]. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thorizinar Chassidim?

You've actually come upon a Chassidic sect that I don't know about? Do tell.

Guy Montag 00:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, totally ridiculous. But I figured as much. Keep up the good work bro.

Guy Montag 03:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, your short comment made my day. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Modifying signature

You do it by modifying the "Nickname" on your Preferences page. You should see a little "preferences" link in the upper right corner of your screen, in between "my talk" and "my watchlist". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Karaites

Hi Briangotts. I am pleased to see that the dispute seems to have calmed down, and have ended well. POV-pushers are a problem, but they usually give up after a while.--Wiglaf 20:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Testing my new signature

--Briangotts User Talk:Briangotts 03:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yuya

Interesting article. However, I think it would be much better if you gave the names of the people who are discussing/arguing his possible identification with Joseph. Anyway, I'm nominating it for inclusion at Did You Know, & hoping that sparks some interest. -- llywrch 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Albrecht von Wallenstein

I removed the category mercenaries from Albrecht von Wallenstein article. Wallenstein was regular soldier who (by various means) obtained large wealth and used this wealth to finance army for pennyless emperor; receiving many advantages as reward - right for classical loot being one. It was his independence (opposite to being mercenary) what cost him life. Pavel Vozenilek 22:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone's ideological attachments disappeared after few years in the Thirty Years War. Wallenstein was Protestant but switched to Catholic side before the war (nothing unusual these days). His attempt to defect to Swedes had many reasons - one of them was that Emperor didn't like powerful semi-independent magnate, another was sheer incompetency of imperial side. Quite possible scenario was Wallenstein personally taking over rule over empire. Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious persecution by Jews

It's hard to tell. As much as I tell him what my real issues with the article are, he insists they're something else. People will believe what they want, I suppose. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Vagn Åkesson

Nice article, and it was a good idea to make a Jomsviking category!--Wiglaf 20:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

IDRIVE

You showed support for This week's Improvement Drive. This week Lhasa was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

Sigvaldi and Styrbjörn

This question has bugged me as well. I guess both claims are source-based, and so both are valid. My personal theory is that when Styrbjörn defeated Palnatoki, Palnatoki remained the official commander of Jomsborg, but as a vassal of Styrbjörn. When Styrbjörn left for Uppsala, he hardly took the whole force with him. A part should have remained, probably commanded by Palnatoki. P was later succeeded by Sigvaldi.--Wiglaf 14:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I am getting criticised for putting up Götaland theory for deletion. Perhaps, you would have an opinion on the matter.--Wiglaf 15:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, I guess I am upset with having read one of their self-published books. They used spiritists, faked quotes and called 19th century maps 5th century maps. I think the less this theory is given space, the better. It has no following at universities, but their agressive preaching is making non-scholars quite confused. Even I was positive before starting reading about the subject. Thanks for adding the article to my userpage. I am flattered that you think I have contributed substantially to it.--Wiglaf 16:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Valhalla

Most of what remains of Norse mythology is the mythology of the elite, of the aristocracy. As far as I know the people who went to Hell were those who lied, had breaken an oath or did not cut their nails or their hair. The slaves went to Thor himself, and IIRC, the women who died in childbirth went to Frigg. I guess decent commoners went to another place, although there are no extant sources about this. Balder went to Hell, on the other hand, so all I can say is that we know too little today. I can verify later this evening and get back to you about it.--Wiglaf 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia mythica

Hi Briangotts. Several Scandinavians, User:Haukurth, User:Salleman, User:Io and myself have identified bogus information taken from that site on Norse mythology, and removed it from Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 19:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Norse afterlife

There is another fate, that may have been that of the common Norseman, reincarnation. According to Norse mythology Helgi Hundingsbane and Sigrún had been a couple in a previous life as Helgi and Svava (in the legend of Helgi Hjörvardsson) and they were reborn once more as Helgi and Kara. The concept of reincarnation existed.--Wiglaf 22:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Slave trade

If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at Slave trade? I believe that User:Heraclius has been involved in a determined attempt to POV the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

trachtate

Hi Brian, on Simeon ben Shetach you linked a number of Talmudic tractates, creating redirects to the relevant seder on the go. However, they are never called trachtates, so I deleted the redirects. Perhaps the names should be redlinked until articles on the individual tractates are written. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomination

You have been nominated for admin.--Wiglaf 21:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome, and best of luck! --Merovingian (t) (c) 23:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• You're welcome; you deserve it. HKT ^talk 17:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• A pleasure to support you : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• No problem. Sorry, it took so long. You answered me just after I had gone fishing crayfish for a few days.--Wiglaf 21:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• It's been my pleasure.Guy Montag 00:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion ^talk 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

Hi there, I've seen your name pop up a couple times recently on my watchlist, and really just wanted to tell you that every time I encounter you, I immediately think of Gringotts. Cheers! This bit of randomness brought to you by · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Crayfish

How does one go about fishing for crayfish? And what does one do with them once caught?

Boiled Crayfish

In the evening, you bait cages with roach, and sink the cages to the bottom of the lake with a line and a floating device so that you can easily retrieve the cages. When it is dark, you go out with a flashlight and look for the floating devices, pull up the cages and look for crayfish. Then you boil them with dill, salt, sugar and perhaps some beer in it. The crayfish are served cool the next day at a crayfish party that you have together with friends and, traditionally, with Swedish vodka. It is a tradition to do so in August, and my parents have a lake :).--Wiglaf 22:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, I just happened to see this! I had no idea Sweden had "crayfish." Typing this word makes me laugh. I'm from the Texas Gulf Coast, not far from the Louisiana border, and the Louisianans call 'em crawfish. Texans tend to go with crawdads (or crawfish). And the recipe also made me laugh! We boil 'em with all kinds of spicy stuff, and Irish red potatoes, and eat 'em on the spot. No waiting until they're cool. The beverage of choice is generally beer, though vodka would do in a pinch ;). Apologies, Briangotts, for hijacking your talk page. Let me know if you want it back. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Abdi-Heba

Yep, it's an interesting article, & a nice addition to Wikipedia; I've added a link to it from Amarna letters. But where did the translations come from? They don't match either William Moran's text, or W.F. Albert's in ANET, & it is common courtesy to acknowledge the source. -- llywrch 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Amarna Letters

Thanks very much for voting for me at RFA, I feel almost embarassed by the unanimous vote (Boothy443 don't count).

Could you please have a look at the work of MichaelMcAnnis - start from Talk:Amarna Letters Dictionary Global, No. 1 and the two other articles referenced at the top of that talk page. It is totally outside my subject areas but I am sure that his work will never be suitable for Wikipedia. VfD seems too crude a tool to use against someone who is obviously putting a lot of effort and whose heart is obviously in the right place. -- RHaworth 05:39:10, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me.

User:El_C and I already closed this chapter in my book:[6] Please refrain from instigations. TheUnforgiven 19:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

And yet your harrassment and use of foul, racist invective with other users continues unabated. --Briangotts (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Never let it be said that a man can't respond to systemic bias in racism with discussion about how race is pertinent to an issue. Point out where I continued this after El_C talked with me, or are you playing the race card? Only Gentiles are racist; is that right by you? TheUnforgiven 13:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I choose not to respond to your baiting. --Briangotts (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is ironic that you are the one who baited me to come here, by editing TShilo12's namespace RFC. I told you I didn't want any trouble. TheUnforgiven 13:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this situation technically falls under the category of irony. --Briangotts (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why care for the correct term, when hypocrisy would surely condemn your act further? TheUnforgiven 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you win. I guess you really put me in my place. Still not quite sure how I am "harrassing" you, when you are the one who contacted me and accused me of all sorts of malfeasance. --Briangotts (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't play stupid and try to shift it onto me. You are the one who inserted yourself into the "RFC" and baited me in the first place. As I swear it on the memory of one still in his youth, I did not know you existed beforehand.  :) TheUnforgiven 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Your behavior with me and with numerous other editors clearly establishes that you are one "still in his youth". I will stipulate to that. --Briangotts (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Please follow WP:NPA and WP:WIN. TheUnforgiven 18:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You fall back on those a lot. I fail to see how agreeing with your own statement that you are young constitutes a personal attack. Indeed, I was following the policy of assume good faith and assuming that you were being truthful. --Briangotts (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't mock me. Stop baiting me. Please drop this and be done with it. Thank you. TheUnforgiven 19:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, when you stop making historically ridiculous additions to the article (and my talk page), I will be happy to "drop this". To accuse me of baiting you when you continue to come into my userspace to leave comments is the height of, as they say, chutzpa. --Briangotts (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Brian, thank you for being the 112 voter in my RfA, you put me over the top! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 19:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Just a note to say thanks for voting, and not to worry about Boothy, xe unfortunately is a Good Editor Gone Bad. Or at least Bitter. Hope to see you around the place. Thanks again and happy editing, Slac speak up! 22:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC).

Sigurd Syr

You'll find Snorri's account of Sigurd Syr in the Saga of Olaf Trygvason, here, and in the Saga of Olaf the Holy here.--Wiglaf 15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Please see WP:AN3#User:TheUnforgiven ←Humus sapiens←ну? 18:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is enough for an admin to take measures, but you may want to add your comments for weight. This is not the first time TheU violates WP policies. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 19:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You think that baiting me can be sufficient evidence to have me blocked or banned, just so you can edit in your pro-Zionist POV without accepting Gentile positions on issues? TheUnforgiven 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

I like to welcome you as a member of our Guild. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 20:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

By the collective will of the Wikipedia community, you're an admin! Please read the advice. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Enjoy your new buttons, and welcome to the cabal!--Wiglaf 22:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• !!!מזל טוב חבר :-D Tomer ^TALK 06:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, Brian; it's well-deserved. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

My belated congrats! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations and Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. Congratulations and Best Wishes in your new role as admin. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Al Andalus

If you have a chance, would you mind reviewing the current dispute there, and giving your thoughts? Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Unforgiven

Nobody's ever taken the time to take him as far as arfar. :-\ Meanwhile, he keeps producing more and more evidence. Tomer ^TALK 19:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

You baited him into anti-jewish verbiage? I am impressed! :-).--Wiglaf 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A loss for the extreme right on Wikipedia. For someone who writes on early Nordic history, that is a relief.--Wiglaf 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Dammit. I thought I was the one who had baited him. In other news, I think that we should continue to work on this RFC proposal page so that it can be presented to the powers that be, and he can be hardbanned. He's been nothing but a detriment from the day he first showed up. Tomer ^TALK 21:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I see from this that he blames you for his attrocious behavior.Tomer ^TALK 21:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ælia Capitolina

Brian, getting back to what caused the latest round of problems from TU, I dug around in the history of the article, because something was really bothering me about it. I've addressed my concerns here. Just thought you might be interested... Tomer ^TALK 21:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Book of Roads and Kingdoms (al-Qitab al Masalik w’al Mamalik)

I'm a little confused as to why the transliteration of the title is rendered al-Qitab, rather than al-Kitab. Usually, [k] is used to transliterate the letter kaf (as in the last letter of masalik and mamalik). Why the [q] in this case? --Skoosh 00:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll go ahead and change it. --Skoosh 00:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I wish I could help, but I don't know. I find categories confusing, and all too often used to push a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi, I wanted to thank your for your support on my recent RfA. I will do my very best to ensure that your confidence in me was not misplaced. -Loren 00:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hall Monitor's RFA

Thank you for the taking time to comment on my recent RFA nomination. Your confidence and support are greatly appreciated. Hall Monitor 22:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fitzpatrick's War

No, sorry. I haven't read it. My knowledge of science fiction is significant but nowhere near comprehensive. It sounds like an interesting book though.

Authors I've read heavily include Mike Resnick, George R. R. Martin, Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein.

Theodore Judson isn't a familiar name. Is he fairly new? Isomorphic 03:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus

User:Irishpunktom keeps claiming that Al-Andalus was a "haven" for Sufis escaping persecution, but he refuses to provide a proper citation for his claim. I've been asking for one for over a week now, on the Talk: page, with no luck. Do you think you might have more success at eliciting it from him? I'd appreciate oversight from a third party. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have, of course, given a source, however, being away from Home, as I am right now, I cannot quote directly from it. The book is ISBN:1850652899 Called "Countdown to Armageddon: Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam" by Mattias Gardell. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. I have left it out, BTW. Who has been critical of Gardell ? If I had have known he was a dodgy source I would have (and Will) look elsewhere for source. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

HappyCamper's RFA - Thanks for your support! :-)

Hi Briangotts! Thanks for your support on my recent RFA. I'm now an administrator and your support was much appreciated. I was very touched to receive support from so many different Wikipedians - thank you for being one of them! I hope in the future we'll get a chance to collaborate on writing articles or performing some administrative tasks. If you ever need an extra helping hand, please feel free to let me know. See you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 16:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too, thanks for supporting my request for adminship! Coffee 08:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Khanate of Kazan

Hi! My congratulations!

As you are an admin, could you answer to my question? I'd fogotten how to make a user into a systop status?

Could you look throu Kazan Khanate? It's a case where native English speaker needs! Thank you! --Untifler 21:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking policy/Stormfront list question

They're listed by Wikipedia name, but, as I'm sure you are well aware, some people's Wikipedia names are their real names. As well, many people who don't use their real names use similar ones, or leave biographical information on their User pages which either definitely identifies them, or makes them easy to trace. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If you took it off as a result of this, you might want to mention that. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In case you haven't found the answer yet, the list at Stormfront was Wikipedia user account names only. A few who appear on the list look to be people who use their real names as Wikipedia account names. A discussion of whether that is enough to constitute a credible threat to those on the list had not reached consensus; however, Jimbo has stated his opinion that he thinks it is enough, so discussion has pretty much ceased on that issue in favor of his opinion.

(I found your post on Jayjg's talk page after reading his talk page, trying to find a reason for an article talk page edit of his. I noticed that you hadn't been given a response, so I thought I would. If you'd already found this information elsewhere, please forgive the intrusion.) Unfocused 23:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As well as Jimbo stating his opinion, there was around a two-thirds majority in favor of the block, so unless you're saying a consensus has to be 100 per cent, a consensus was, in fact, reached. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

A consensus is not 66% nor 80%, nor 100%. You're confusing a supermajority with consensus. Consensus is a decision or resolution that all parties in a dispute or discussion can accept, even if they disagree. Please take care to note the difference. In day to day matters, such as VfD and RFA, a supermajority serves as a practical substitute for real consensus. However, such operational conveniences do not change the proper definition of consensus.

Jimbo's decision forced a consensus that was probably already developing, but had clearly not been reached at the time he announced his opinion. Regardless of its history, it's now a fact of Wikipedia life that virtually everyone accepts, and I don't intend to argue it further. Unfocused 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Double apologies on my part are due; I somehow overlooked the reply Jayjg had already given you above under the header "Blocking policy". You certainly didn't deserve to have this argument on your talk page, and although I was trying to be helpful, it is a direct result of my oversight. I offer to make one good faith, referenced, content contributing edit to any article of your choice as my way of apologizing. (See the article George Powell for an example of an earlier apology I made to User:Bishonen, who requested I write an article on this person.) Unfocused 19:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL. NO need to apologize. But if you feel compelled to make the edit, how bout bulking up Sigurd Syr? :-) (See above for Wikisource links) Briangotts (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am very pleased to have amused you with my offer. I cannot promise you a specific time frame, but look forward to learning enough about Sigurd Syr to fufill my promise and complete my apology. I am very sincere about this, but also light-hearted. Thanks for playing along. Unfocused 20:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my request for administrator powers, which has been successful. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks again! Scimitar ^parley 17:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Huns

Hun (燻)], the barbarians living to the north of China at the time of Xia (夏), was referred to as Xiongnu at the time of Han." -- Sino-Korean Dictionary Sinzahay, Minzungserim, 1967 Please don't delete.

I have no clue how that's relevant to my edits. --Briangotts (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Dear Briangotts, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Jewish History stubs

Thanx for your comment re: Bar Kapparah. I'm already working on Hiyya bar Abba, and I'll add the others to my list. Thanx for pointing them out! Sputnikcccp 21:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigurd Syr

As promised, I've made an edit to Sigurd Syr. I'm not at all used to writing about Viking Sagas, nor working with only a single source. I hope I've summarized Sigurd Syr appropriately, and I hope you like the edit. Thanks for accepting my apology, and thanks for helping me learn a more about Norse history. Unfocused 17:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Edom

Excellent work! I've done some minor copyedits and dabs. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Kazan

Hi! Could you start a stub Hebrew edition of Kazan and Tatars articles. Some my friends are studing Hebrew, but thel level of knowlege isn't advanced as well... Please, note, that Semitic 'q' should be used in word 'Qazan'! Thank you, --Untifler 13:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You might want to try User:El C or User:Doron they'd probably be better for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Brian, thanks for believing in me, but I am afraid my Hebrew is not that good, unfortunately. Let's try to contact someone else about קזן. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

User:El C and User:IZAK come to mind... If it's just simple translation, even User:Ramallite could probably lend a hand, although this stuff is pretty far outside his interest area I'm guessing... Tomer ^TALK 01:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Although my Hebrew knowledge is only conversational, I know of a couple of Hebrew programs that could help out. [7] This site should have a Hebrew converter. My suggestion is to get a qwerty hebrew program, and your best choice for a knowledgeble Hebrew speaker would probably be User:Tomer. I am getting up there too :). Guy Montag 02:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA!

My dear Brian, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. Your trust in me, when the matter of my increasing involvement was being put against me by a few people, gave me strength and cheered me up a lot; I felt I was being understood at last. You'll always have in me a friend. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Khazars

I consider it one of the best articles around, it is in my watchlist. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Hi, hv seen ur rv of the article. If you don't find consensus on talk page, u shd probably try to achieve it. Else, u may find that someone else may rv ur edits. Given that the article was a FA, I believe that lot of iterations hv already occurred. You may want to check out the archive of the talk page as well. --Gurubrahma 18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

E-mail for you, Brian. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbReq against Jguk

Please consider supporting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Brian. I took the lberty to adjust the indent & "forge" :) your sig. Please fix as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Norse in Gardariki

I wish I did. Unfortunately, it is not exactly a favoured subject, and the written sources are virtually non-existent. The information is consequently provided by archaeology, but in Russia the methodology is to consider a Norse grave to be non-norse if there is a Slavic pin in the grave (something I know from personal acquaintances tempts archaeologists to add Slavic objects to Norse graves during excavations).--Wiglaf 19:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor RfA

Hi Brian. My comment on the RfA page was brief, so it's not surprising it was confusing as well. As I clarified to Bababjou, while I did express concerns about his POV editing, I find Anonymous Editor generally reasonable in discussion, and don't see any reason to think he would abuse his admin privileges. In addition, I think that Wikipedia would benefit from multiple POVs. Also, I think the Muslim related articles get a lot of vandalism, and it would be helpful to have an admin patrolling them more regularly. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support! If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your vote change, from support to neutral to oppose

I'm a great admirer of your work and I hope to work with you on Norse-related articles in the future, but I had to change my vote to oppose over the Stormfront incident. I would be happy to discuss the issue with you if you wish. --Briangotts (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to change my vote again to weak oppose. From the developing discussion it seems clear that Haukurth still doesn't understand the danger of Amalekite's actions, and I find this very disturbing for reasons I've stated above. Briangotts (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I can express this any more clearly now than before but I'll try.

• Amalekite's post, when taken in context of the VNN where he posted it, his moderation of that forum and his previous postings to it, arguably constitute an incitement to violence against certain Wikipedians.
• Accepting the previous, the post puts people in danger.
• This justifies the block of User:Amalekite under our rules.
• If this had been the reasoning given for the block from the beginning I doubt I would ever have objected strongly for it and probably I would not have expressed myself at all.
• Nevertheless, I don't think the aforementioned danger was large.
• I don't think that blocking User:Amalekite did anything to ameliorate that danger.
• I think that blocking in general is not a very effective remedy since people can so easily get new accounts - and indeed User:Amalekite returned under the name User:Etikelama and no doubt has other accounts as well.
• I think that other action than blocking, or in addition to blocking, would probably have been more effective. Writing to the moderator of the Stormfront forums, asking him to remove the post in question, was something that seemed like more productive action to me so I did.
• I think that arguing about the blocking of a Wikipedia username trivializes any real threat or danger that exists. If there is a real threat, danger and incitement to violence the matter should be taken through the appropriate legal channels - arguing technicalities of Wikipedia banning policy makes the matter seem like some trivial game.

If you feel my opinions on this single issue, out of all the things I've done and said for the duration of my career on Wikipedia, weigh so heavily against me as to counter anything positive I might bring to the janitor position then you are indeed right to vote oppose. It greatly surprises me that people will apply this kind of litmus test for a single opinion. Based on this alone people have expressed the opinion that I'm an unethical person. Others have said that since my judgment is so flawed here I will clearly have poor judgment in other things - but no-one has pointed out to me any other previous failing of my judgment from my record.

I never expected this, I never thought this would be such a big deal, I never thought so many people considered me a bad person. I don't really care tuppence whether I get a rollback button or not - but I care about this. And frankly, I'm feeling absolutely horrible at the moment. I just woke up after a few hours of fitful sleep to find more oppose votes, your being one of them. I don't know what I'll do now. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 05:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No one thinks you're a bad person, Haukur. The issue for me is that you didn't at the time, and I feel still don't, understand how strongly people felt about Alex Linder posting that list. If a white supremacist had posted a list of names to a Ku Klux Klan website of editors he believed were black, are you seriously saying you'd want to see him continue to edit? You were asking your fellow editors back then to continue to work on a project alongside someone who wished them dead, and who had taken steps to publicize their existence to other people who wished them dead. You sent (as I recall) around 20 e-mails to the list about it, and posted numerous times to the talk page, so you clearly felt strongly that he should be unblocked. Yet you knew nothing about him. You stated, for example, that he didn't wish anyone dead, when all you had to do is read his posts on VNN and elsewhere to see that he has explicitly called for death to the Jews, and has advocated the genocide of black people. You also posted of his list: "This is not a threat. Nor is it, I believe, an action exposing any Wikipedian to danger. For one thing no information is made public that isn't already public." But many of the users whose names he posted don't make public that they're Jews, and in fact some of them aren't. You were expressing strong views on issues you'd done no research into. You also seemed not to know that the block was covered by the blocking policy. Again, a lack of research.

Finally, the argument you and Matt had with El C today on his talk page, which is what drew attention to your nomination, was worrying for its timing, its vehemence, and because it showed your views hadn't changed. You were still arguing that: "From User:Amalekite's contribution log and his posts to Stormfront and VNN I see no evidence that he was acting in bad faith on Wikipedia. And we assume good faith unless we have overwhelming evidence to the contrary." I'm sorry but I find that very naive. When a group of editors is being attacked like that, we have an obligation to support them, and I want to see editors who understand that become admins.

But please don't mistake this criticism of your actions as an opinion that you're in any way a bad person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Many people have said that my judgment is so deeply wrong that I can't be trusted. Others have said that I don't have ethical integrity. El C has recently repeated that he feels revolted by me and he has never retracted his comment that I acted as far from goodfaith as is imaginable. Indeed there are people who not only feel but have told me that I am not a good person. I'm glad that you don't feel that way, Sarah.

Why do you continually use the word vehemence to describe my extensive participation in the Amalekite discussion? You yourself have participated very extensively and entirely on one side in my RFA and the associated discussions - even to the point of commenting on a third party talk page here. Would you describe your own behavior as vehement? Can we agree that an alternative word is more apt?

I did as much research as most people at the time and I carefully watched every contribution to the discussion. I realize now that I should have read through all relevant policy pages earlier, in particular to find the very rarely used provision that was invoked. I regret not having done that. If you yourself had stated your reasons for the block clearly and with reference to the relevant policy at the outset you might have been able to save us all some trouble. But hindsight is 20/20, of course, and I had thought - until this week - that we would let bygones be bygones.

I still think that Amalekite's contribution log suggests that he acted in good faith. Most of his contributions were naive, some were clearly not helpful and most were reverted with good reason. Some of his anonymous contributions were worse and I only became aware of them late in the debate. People can act in good faith for a bad cause. That someone acts in good faith does not mean that she is right or that she is necessarily a good person.

As I have stated many times before I essentially stopped objecting to the block when all the facts of the matter had become clear to me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Haukurth, you stopped objecting but you believe that Amalekite acted in good faith which is shocking to me. You also believe that it is more effective to contact a website known for advocating the death of certain groups of people and then ask them to take down a list of names because it might lead to harm to members of those groups. This, to me, is just naivete. You are right that blocking the party in question is no way to ensure he will not continue his listing on Stormfront but it is the only remedy available to Wikipedia as a community to at least protect its members from harassment here.

Like Sarah, I don't attribute any bad faith, malice, or prejudice to you, only, as I said, what I believe is poor judgment in one specific area where admin powers are important. Whether other people have accused you of being a bad person, I can't control what they think, just as I can't judge you based on the fact that your support comes in part from people whose views are abhorrent to me and who have made similar baseless accusations against others. I would of course vehemently deny any such charges that were made against you, as I have done here and on the vote page.

In pointing to your numerous (and from my perspective excellent) contributions to WP articles, you are conflating two issues. One is whether a person's article edits are valuable to WP as a whole, and I don't think even your detractors can reasonably deny that they are in this case. The other is whether they can be relied upon to exercise the judgment necessary to be an admin (as determined by each voter), and I simply can't be sure of that in this case. I think the issues are separate, though they are difficult to distinguish (indeed, this is why it has been so difficult for me to vote against you in this instance). --Briangotts (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know Stormfront as a group doesn't advocate the death of certain groups of people. Alex Linder, however, has done so.

I have said a few times now, including in my original answers to the admin questions, that I never had any intentions of involving myself in blocking issues as an admin, believing that I could use admin options valuably in other areas. Yet I am continually told that my judgment as regards blocking issues is enormously important in judging whether I can be trusted with admin tools.

You say you find me naive and my opinions shocking. You've expressed clearly that you hold a low view of my very judgment as a person. You also feel I can't be trusted with a few technical options on a collaborative online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Technical options that are given to 14 year olds if they've contributed nicely for a few months. This makes it clear that you hold my character in very low regard. I don't usually express my feelings here but I'll tell you that I'm deeply hurt and sad. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I am saddened too and it was certainly never my intention to hurt your feelings. I don't think I every said (because I don't believe) that you have poor "judgment as a person". I don't know you well enough to know that. From your edits and contributions to WP it seems you actually have very good judgment in general. I believe that you exhibit a lack of understanding in this one area that is unfortunate (just as, I am sure, I lack understanding in various areas as well). The problem here is that this area falls within the scope of an admin's duties. Whether you intend to involve yourself in that area of the duties or not, the question of adminship involves whether you should be given the power to do so. There's no way for an admin to be limited to this or that area of authority- the power is plenary in scope.

As a point of fact, I can't say what Stormfront as a group advocates. Certainly, as you point out, Linder does advocate extermination of Jews and others, and he is by no means alone among Stormfront readership. By posting a list of "Jewish" cabalists at Stormfront Linder knew or should have known damn well that he might be condemning some of those people to bodily harm or death if his list got into the hands of a tech-savvy neo-Nazi with too much spare time. This is an issue of vital importance to the entire WP community. If it were anything less critical, or if I believed that you had genuinely come to an understanding of these issues, I would never have opposed your adminship. But I don't see that from the discussion as it has developed.

Again, I'm sorry if I have hurt you because that was not my intention. I'm sure Wiglaf can attest that I have only the best of intentions in this as I've discussed the issue at length with him and he knows how conflicted I have been over it. And I hope that, whatever way the admin vote goes (and it seems like it could easily go either way at this point) you will continue to contribute and that we can collaborate on Norse related articles in the future. --Briangotts (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This threat argument is rather extreme and narrow, and doesn't include the fact that while Haukurth defers, other admins are still free to take action. Also, considering that we know for a fact our site is frequented by Stormfront readers and other extremists, does that mean that everyone who participates in Wikiproject:Judaism has cursed themselves similarly? I think not. There are perceived threats, and there are credible threats. We need to be able to openly discuss the differences between them. While we discuss, deferring to the judgement of those who are more cautious is the correct thing to do. This is exactly what Haukurth did, and stated he would do in the future. That is certainly not poor judgement. Unfocused 16:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I respectfully disagree. There's a big difference between a few Stormfront folks looking at the site and actively going and posting a hit list on a Stormfront forum, in my view. --Briangotts (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hit list"? Again, the root of the reason why the discussion was necessary is in plain view. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, it was never expressed as a "hit list" except by those who felt threatened by the existence of the list. It was posted as list of users with a certain POV. The location of the posting is is why the discussion about it was completely appropriate. Opposition based on Haukurth's participation in the discussion is wrong. Wikipedia needed this discussion. Those who tried to cut off the discussion of what the list was and what it meant were (and remain) wrong. The answer to hatred and bigotry is not censorship. Unfocused 16:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can resolve this issue between us. We will have to agree to disagree on this. In my view, a list of "Jews" and "collaborators" posted to Stormfront is a hit list, and it was disingenuous of Linder to claim otherwise. --Briangotts (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As a point of fact, Amalekite labelled his list "Elders of Wikipedia", and called them "Zionist cabalists". He did not explicitly label them "Jews" and "collaborators" in his post. This might not have any great bearing on your overall argument, of course, and you might say the "Jew" part was implicit from the context, but I think it's important we stick to the facts, and try not to read into Amalekite's statements more than there is definitely there. — Matt Crypto 17:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree to disagree, because now I think I understand you fully; but in doing so, I think I've further proven that the discussion itself was important. Haukurth should not be penalized for participating in a legitmate discussion, especially as he publicly deferred to those more cautious regarding what was done in the mean time and also publicly gave consent to what was done in the end. That is where judgement is separate from beliefs. Unfocused 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Choni

Thanks for fixing up Choni for me, I was working on it today, but I seemed to have made some basic mistakes. (I'm still quite new at this). --Rachack 03:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please vote and ask others to vote. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 23:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute at Mizrahi Jews

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with User:Al-Andalus at Mizrahi Jews? It's regarding various wordings, and I'd appreciate some outside opinions. Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FireFox RFA

Briangotts/archive 2005

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful Request for Adminship! — Phil Welch 03:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Hi, Brian!Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Crazy changes by Gilgamesh

Unfortunately, User:Gilgamesh is now imposing his own views by changing the transliterated Hebrew names of articles with redirects to unreadable Hebrew names and fonts, as if his criteria are the only ones to reckon with, when there are in fact several. My computer, as I am sure many others' as well, does not pick up his type of fonts, and thus he is messing up articles such as Safed, Hadera, Holon, Afula, Arad, Israel and many others defacing them and making them unreadable on the web. He is going to DESTROY the normal usage of Wikipedia's Hebrew transliterations to satisfy his own needs without there being any consensus. Common usages are being thrown out in favor of obscure and pedantic academic usages familiar to only a handful of unkown academics. He should be called upon to stop BEFORE he rushes to do further damage without any consensus being reached. All his changes should therefore be reverted. See all his recent contributions via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilgamesh I thank you for your interest, and urge all readers here to act. IZAK 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

At the present time there is a serious discussion taking place, aiming at some consensus that will result in "official" Wikipedia guidelines about how Hebrew should be used and written in Wikipedia articles. Because of your past or ongoing interest in these type of articles with Hebrew words in them, your attention is called to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [8] TO MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN AND TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE "DOORS ARE SHUT" PLEASE SEE THE RELATED DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [9] Thank you! IZAK 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Astrakhan Khanate

Hi, Briengotts!!! Now, your help needs to re-compile this Easter European article well! :) I hope you'll help as usual. Thanks, regarts, --Untifler 18:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

Brian, if you're around, would you mind taking a look at the request for protection for Chip Berlet? It's at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

Thank you for your vote and comments. Since you stated in your vote that user Radiant's opinons matters highly to you, and in case you are not monitoring the vote as closely as I am (being the nomiantor and all), I thought I'd let you know that Radiant has changed his vote to neutral.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Briangotts,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 15:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther and the Jews

I've commented there again - the whole section is a rather ridiculous apologetic imho. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Brian. Could you please comment on the attempts to remove a sourced short quote in Talk:Martin Luther#Martin Luther and the Jews - the summary needs rework. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Howdy, Brian.

The same folks who didn't like the books critical of Islam are now trying to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term) which has over 500 Kilogoogles (in various forms). Perhaps you could take a look and share your input. Klonimus 00:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You need to read more of what Luther wrote

Mr. Briangotts, I take great exception to your saying that much of Luther's work is antisemitic. This betrays an uninformed POV on your part. I agree that his On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic. I hold that view in opposition to my other fellow Wikipedians who are Lutheran, but as a scholar I take great exception to unfair exaggerations. Do you have a graduate masters degree in Lutheran doctrine that you can make such an unfair accusation? Luther's opponents were just as vitriolic if not even more so. One does not read what they wrote because only Luther is the famous one here. Perhaps you could suggest that sections of the article could be rewritten without engaging in supercilious, rude characterizations of what other people have written. I wonder if there is POV going on among those who want to censor any information that would tend to give the whole story about Luther. You could be more diplomatic when you chastise your fellow Wikipedians. drboisclair 14:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I "chastised" no one. What I said was that a particular passage was unencyclopedic and didn't sound right in a particular article. I also said that Luther's work contained many anti-Semitic rants. Both are statements I fully stand by; the former is an opinion to which I am entitled and with which many agree, and the latter is simply fact for which I could cite any number of references. If you choose to take offense at them, that is your own concern. --Briangotts 15:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you also said, and I quote: "The fact is that many people in Luther's age (including his colleague Philipp Melanchthon managed to promote their particular religious views without engaging in the vitriolic anti-Semitism that characterized much of Luther's work." This is simply an historical error or, at best, an exaggeration. Encyclopedic articles are also supposed to be accurate. I tend to agree with you about the manner of writing the article, and I do believe that the sentence in question should be reworked or supported with citations; however, I think one could employ a little courtesy in bringing this matter to the attention of others. That is some advice from an old post grad. Cheers. drboisclair 13:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am frankly astounded that you found the quote you cited offensive. I would have thought that "an old post grad" would have a thicker skin, especially since the statement was not directed to you and as I have had to endure far worse in pursuit of my own graduate degree. I find your assertion that the statement is a historical error strange. Ultimately, this is not a fruitful avenue of discussion. --Briangotts 14:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't find it offensive. I found it an exaggerated generalization. With genuine curiosity might I ask how you arrived at this conclusion? Was it from primary or secondary sources? If I were to make a generalization about your field specialization, you might be a bit miffed at me, wouldn't you? drboisclair 14:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As a codicil to the last comment I wish to say that I admire your interest in history and Jewish history--I too am a scholar of history, and I am very good at it--, and I am glad that you are taking an interest in the Luther article. I really think that we are all on the same page more than any of us think. Scholars that really probe for accuracy and the truth are rare! With kindest regards, David Boisclair. drboisclair 19:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Shalom Haver, Ani Fenyõ Jean-Pierre Ady, Filozofus es Fenyõ Miksa (NYUGATos) unokaja

Lehet hogy ismerjuk egymast... Szoval, az a helyzet hogy tobb mint harom eve benne vagyok a Wikipedia-ba (angol nyelvu), es csak most valaki kikezdett velem, talan irigysegbol...ki tudja. Pedig mint zsido filozofus mar voltak tamadasok ellenem. Remelem kisegitesz. Szivesen ismerkednek magaval az Interneten keresztul...legy ovatos ezzel a Wikipediasokal, eleg sokkan vannak Amerikaban akik anti-szemitak. Shalom, (ulay atta daber b'ivrit?)

Fenyõ Jean-Pierre Ady filozofus

Founder & Director The Infinity Society Washington, D.C.

(202) 258-2287

admin@infinitysociety.org

www.infinitysociety.org

68.48.73.93 07:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

List of political epithets

I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this; an anonymous editor is insisting on adding the term "Anti-Semite", thus claiming that is a political epithet, rather than a description of someone who hates Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Malta

Thanks for your contributions to Malta/Maltese language related things. Would you consider stopping by the Malta-related topics notice board? Srl 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Luzzu

I do not have much information at present regarding the Luzzu, however if in the future I will have I will surely place it in the article. You may wish to contribute in Malta-related topics notice board. Maltesedog 20:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

i added to the article from what i knew to be fact and what i researched for a few minutes in websites, tell me what you think, although it seems to be sufficient to me considering the highly specific nature of the topic Yurigerhard 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings and Felicitations

Wanna be my guinea pig?

Hey Brian. Thanks for your "Strong Support" before and during my RfA. Thanks to you and 56 other great people, it was a rivaled success! Now to learn how to use my new tools...

Looking for Good articles

Hi Brian, I've been on the lookout for articles that meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Good articles, & figured you have probably encountered a few in your area of attention. Could you create a list of possible candidates for consideration? -- llywrch 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, those look like a good start. Feel free to pass along any more you may find. -- llywrch 21:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw you added 11 of the articles you suggested to WP:GA; I haven't had a chance to review the articles you mentioned, & I did so now, & felt that 3 could not be considered Good articles for the following reasons:

• Crimean Karaites -- The inroduction needs to be rewritten, particularly because it first mentions "Karaim", & only in the second paragraph is the subject actually discussed.
• Jomsvikings -- Also in need of a good copy editting. For example, the age requirements for membership are mentioned twice.
• Samaritan -- Another article in need of copy editting, particularly in the section "History". The way external sources are linked not only violates Wikipedia style, but is just plain confusing.

And if it looks as if I forgot one, I moved Sanhedrin to culture, where I thought it was a better fit.

These are the only objections that I can see to including them. If these are fixed, then I feel that they should be considered Good articles. -- llywrch 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The changes to the first 2 look good. Thanks! -- llywrch 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Radhanite

You are correct that I did not actually vote support. I very rarely do: I've probably only voted to support about 8 or 10 featured articles ever, and they've been ones I've really spent time researching, so I was personally confident of their accuracy and thoroughness. The fact that you left me a message doesn't change that. It doesn't seem short on supporters. However, I found the objection I remarked on to be inappropriate, and I think my comment there increases the chance that when Raul evaluates the situation he will dismiss that objection. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey Briangotts! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew Alphabet

I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Feel free to comment on the talk page or edit the page directly. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. Take a look at what I did with Aleph and tell me what you think. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• I originally had a section on Phoenician pronunciation, but because I had no material on it, except for Aleph, it was recommended by jnothman to remove and I did. I actually now think I'll bring back the aleph section and put it at the beginning. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 23:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia

Hi Brian, are you sure the images you copied from the website are public domain as they have copyright signs on them, and, reading the legal section of the website it doesn't look as if they regard the material as being in the public domain? Arniep 13:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Brian, it is strange that they claim copyright though isn't it? Arniep 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)