User talk:Javits2000/Archives 2

Re: Talking Points
I agree with you, but I figured that the edits are being so tendentious because some of the difficult editors are convinced that we aren't listening to them. Obviously some are just making noise, but I wanted Agha and whoever to get all their cards on the table and clearly define what their issues are. After they did so, others could post their agreement or disagreement, and then we would either get a third opinion, find consensus or vote. Personally, I like the edit that Maria put together, which sidesteps all of the nonsense and uncivil behavior. However, I think it wise to get this out now, while the article is fully protected from those who would simply "Edit By Stamina & Violations" (consistently tag-teaming the pre-agreed edits of the article so no one breaks 3RR and slowly eliminating, albeit temporarily those who disagree via 3RR or AN/I distractions). However, I will concede that this might not work. I concede to your greater experience with WP and editing. Arcayne 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will post it under a new header in 300 Talk. Arcayne 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ...A header called, Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah -Arcayne 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

300 lead
Hey man, thanks for including me. I was actually previewing my response when I got the notice that you left me a mesage. Should be done posting shortly. Hewinsj 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've added my $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that short disappearance. I just gave my opinion in the talk page, although I don't think it'll do much. I don't agree with any uses of the "fictional" label as I've never seen it being applied on similar articles. Furthermore I can't prevent myself from feeling that Islamic chauvinism is having an influence even on wikipedia, implying that the Battle of Thermopylae is a work of fiction (because the word 'fiction' in the lead can easily imply that). This is why I'm in favour of a true neutral solution, along the lines of 3,4,5,6 proposed by Arcayne. Miskin 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think it is a good idea, but I'm not sure if it's better or more "stable" than just leaving it blank. Miskin 00:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point as well and I'd be silly to deny that the film has a great deal of fictional elements. However I can't help but noticing all the historical elements as well, and if we could put an objective utility on both categories I'm pretty sure the fictional elements are minor. The gaps within those two hours are filled with the same thing that Alexander (film) was filled, fictional dialogues and storyline. My second argument is based on what currently is practiced in other similar articles. I don't want to bring up The Patriot again, so I'll point you to Gladiator (film), a film which is 100% fictional and declares "historical" right in the lead. So it appears that 300 is getting special treatment for the fairly obvious reasons. Miskin 00:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a legitimate vote
The lead is fine as it is. User:Arcayne is a party to the dispute, the vote he he has initiated, with options he's cherry picked, has no legitimacy. --Mardavich 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And that is why it might be better for someone else to archive. I am getting a bit tired of the nonsense. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  12:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Here is what I've charted. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC
Considering you did a splendid job on 300, I do request that you have a look at Jurassic Park for me, and perhaps make suggestions as its FAC. Thanks. Alientraveller 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've never seen it? You have to, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List made 1993 one of the best years in cinema ever. Thanks for the heads-up, I'm glad the article doesn't have bad parts in need of copyediting. Alientraveller 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Severe exposure.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Severe exposure.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Paranormalized.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Paranormalized.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine empire
Please see my comments here. Cheers!--Yannismarou 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Byzantium
Thanks for the message, I will gladly assist and cite where I can. By the way, is it okay if I use the same source to cite several things? Makes the notes section look repetitive but then again some books can be v.good. Thanks again, Tourskin 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:6fs.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:6fs.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of 717
Ican draw out the maps from the origina one showing no stripes. Is it possible if you coudl leave the link on my talk page? Thanks alot,

Tourskin 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You said that you would send a scan of the map of Byzantium in 717. I actually have the book "Byzantium at War" by John Haldon, so I am not so sure if you wanted to send a scan of that to me. Heres my email I will be able to draw a map out from it:

emanuelshapera@hotmail.com

Thanks,

Tourskin 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Byzantium under the Angeloi
Please take a look, and share with me ur thoughts as to how we an integrate this into the main article, Byzantine Empire. Thanks.Tourskin 02:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! Take a good look, and make notes! Lol, only kidding. Enjoy ur stay there!Tourskin 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

usage of Commons
dear Javits2000,

I have noticed that on the article Islamic art, almost all images you have uploaded have been imported from the Wikimedia Commons and then uploaded again on Wikipedia. I do not see any sense in that, since that takes up unnecessary memory space by duplicating images. The Wikimedia Commons is a repository for all images that can be used for any language Wikipedia. Please use direct links from the Commons in future instead of uploading them separately again. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. sincerely Gryffindor  23:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ok I see. You conversely have the option to upload images that are on the Wiki onto the Commons. Do you remember what other images you uploaded from the Commons in which article? I'll do a cleanup there in those cases as well. Sincerely Gryffindor  18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Regarding this edit. What does this article talk about? The art of the Byzantine commonwealth, i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy in general, or the art of the Byzantine empire, i.e. Greek Orthodoxy? Those two schools are related and yet distinct. The leading paragraph isn't clear about this, it says that the term may refer to both, which is correct, but it doesn't specify what the article chooses. Also the "Rum millet" is translated in some 99% of english sources as "Greek millet" or "Greek Orthodox millet" because the Ottoman 'Rum' referred to ethnic Greeks alone. To call it Eastern Orthodox millet a posteriori is a grave anachronism. So no matter what focus the term "Byzantine" takes (Byzantine Greek or Byzantine commonwealth) the term 'Rum millet' shouldn't be mistranslated. Miskin 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Schottenkirche with Schottenstift
Regarding your suggestion, please check my comment here Talk:Schottenkirche, Vienna. Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I already started concentrating information on the Church in its page. I created the sections History, Exterior, Interior and Trivia to ease further editing. I went yesterday to take new pictures of the ceiling painting made by Julius Schmid.


 * I didn't take this info out of the Schottensift page yet because, IMHO, it should be rewritten to incorporate what follows
 * History: http://www.schottenstift.at/Hauptseiten/Kloster.html + More information about the Melker Reform that followed the Concil of Constance
 * Museum: http://www.schottenstift.at/Hauptseiten/Museum.html . Famous for its Nativity retable which depicts Jerusalem as Vienna  (http://www.schottenstift.at/images/popups/Museum_Bild_pop.jpg)
 * Private oratory: description of the Romanesque chapel
 * School: http://www.schottenstift.at/Hauptseiten/Gymnasium.html


 * My German is too limited to start translating all this info now. I prefer to focus on Viennese churches for the moment.


 * For your information, I created a disambiguation page for Schottenkirche to take your remarks into account. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Regensburg and the Scots
Just in case you missed it, I have answered your question at Scots Monastery, Regensburg - probably six months too late, but anyway... --Doric Loon (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures from Syria
Hallo Javits, could you please upload your images into commons. We need the picture for an article about Resafa and I think you have more in your gallery.

--84.142.66.32 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

300 edits
The matter is mostly resolved. It required me filing an AN/I report when Nader blew off my request for an immediate apology. He was warned about his conduct and put on notice that he'd be blocked if it ever occurred again. Thought you might want to know. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Consfused
Well you do seme like you have some solid studies on byzantium ...yet in our arguments you kept your comments short....and as i intend to add more in the Byzantine Empire article(when i have the time and read the latest candy-of-a-book i got my hands on...), part of witch you may or may not approve...i whant to ask you why didn`t you ever get more involeved in arguing for your position, i searched my sweeat out to find sources(and belive me that more are coming...),to read or re-read stuff, in books ,google and ....well...even more....but why haven`t you at least quoted that Norwich for exemple(not anyone has acces to his books you know,i even searched the Bucharest Metropolitan Library for him , though not the National one...so i asume that he is not yet translated into romanian...etc) or why not give more arguments to your position , or at least get more profund into a few arguments for a grater effect....i`m not looking for a fight or an edit war;....but let`s say that i like dialectics and doing a job right. Best regards. AdrianCo (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo


 * Curently time, and not a finfing a good source is the problem. I got myself a book "The history of the byzantine empire" by Stelian Brezeanu. I know you haven`t heard of him but he is the "chief of the catedra" (i don`t know how to translate it better it is a sourt of "the gratest in the Instituion in the certain domain") of Universal History of the University of Bucharest, for 30-35 years he has studied the Byzantine Empire! Only his bibliography part of the book is 37 pages(only consisting of general books and monographyes while detailed studies had to be left out as "they exceded the purpouse of the current book")! The book itself beeing of about 500 pages and it is a syntesys work. It was first published 2005, but the current edition (with small ajustments) is form 2007. So the person being an academic with a doctorate in Byzantine History and the book being recent and extensive ... i intend to use it extensivly in wikipedia; however I sadly do not have the time to read it yet!

I know it`s not much but it`s ISBN is 978-973-7839-20-6 and http://www.unibuc.ro/en/cc_csbseegb_en is the only part of the fairly undeveloped website of the Faculty of History of the University of Bucharest were you can find his name (i know it is partly writen in romanian but it is still proof that i am not making it up). Good day! AdrianCo (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo