User talk:Jmabel/Archive 26

suspicious edit?

I find this edit[1] about a monument to Lenin in Seattle suspicious and. from what I can tell from NWsource, the edit seems somewhat misleading as well. However, I don't really know, so I thought I'd pass it on to someone from Seattle who might know more. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Answered at User talk:JCarriker

Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[2] or the Requests for comment/TDC[3]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [4]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• There is nothing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration about arbitration on TDC, nor is there any link to anything of the sort in the message you left me. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

See this link, it is indirectly about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence Read further....

Re: Right-wing politics

Leifern's combativeness doesn't bode well (he even left a snide remark on the WP:3O page[5], ignoring decorum), but at least you're not alone now. He seems to be an intelligent fellow, so let's hope he can stow the partisanship and consider our arguments fairly. I'll try my best to stay with the discussion and respond in a timely fashion, offline commitments permitting. Cheers. -- Hadal 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Bucharest

Hi Joe! I've drawn up a list of stuff to do to Bucharest at Talk:Bucharest. Feel free to add anything there that you'd like to see in the article or that should be fixed up. Once again, thanks for everything you've done! Ronline 09:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 20:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Great Scandal

I have tried to account for all possible concerns on that article and request you to see my 2 notes to you on talk . I will remember your user name as I have first hand issues with bias on wikipedia, one you appear not to have mentioned , but one I should invite to your concerns. I refer to a thorough-going bias apparent exemplified now at Pope Pius XI in a section I flagged as imbalanced. I hope you will be able to accord me some degree of good faith in that all the wiki history pages I have touched show signs of my correction. Yet I am much attacked for so un-biasing the WP, and isolated by concerted and actually bad faith attack . I do hope you will feel strength to concern yourself in this primarily european though world shattering hstory . Thankyou . EffK 16:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Far from criticism- I very much welcome the presence of rational reaction. You were absolutely correct. All I wonder is what you think after I went in and made the incoherent hopefully coherent and above all sourced explicity , removed the worrying said so type stuff? Mt only possible justification for having left it in that state was the way it was jumped on , by editors thoroughly familiar to me. Thanks very much for dignifying me with some reply. I still say that as you are someone with interest in bias that I welcome your presence. I still refer you to a study of wikipedia faith based bias. It is more complex than even that as there appears to me to be several types of bias which over-lap like ripples and magnify into a peak . Perhaps I have tried your patience enough but Ill say that they are at least this :nationalist/widerstand/vatican/CDU Party. If you wish to take me seriously, I would be somewhat gratified , as some people resort to labelling me crazy , which is short and briefly sweet . When I say I welcome your name into my brain I mean it- I go on good faith in the WP, until I am savaged for presenting historical dispute. I object to being unable to tame the above bias, am savaged for my recognition of it, and assert that this is bad faith ad hominem, thats all. Thanks again, if it is still incomprehensible, and you have re-read the effort, , then what would help is having it pointed out to me where it is so. Fair ?EffK 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

short request

Hello Joe! please have a look of the latest edits of Mikka. Now he is now involved in editing false and bias edits on the followings pages: daco-romanian, daco-romanian language. Me and Bogdan wanted just to reedit his bias edits.--Bonaparte 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

right wing & move tool

Eeeeeks! I did use the move tool on one page, did I screw up? I REALLY did not mean to. I so totally apologize. Abjectly sorry. Mea Culpa. --Cberlet 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

HBCU recruitment

I have realized that it would be odd to walk into Wiley to recruit on behalf of Wikipedia just because you and I think it's a good idea. I thought it would be best if I consulted Angela, Jimbo and Anthere and see what they think before running off and making an appointment to discuss an outreach (It could mistaken as an official invitation, or rebuffed because it is not. While I hope that we would get neither response, it is important to remember that this is the South; everything and everyone has their proper place- an ivitation from the wrong people could be considered insulting. I hope they respond quickly, so I can try to meet with Wiley before Christmas break, my goal is not be able to have a yay or a nay by the Seattle meetup-so you can discuss it there if you care to. -JCarriker 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck. Needless to say, up where I live is hardly HBCU territory. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I recieved a positive response from both Angela and Anthere (I guess Jimbo didn't see it). I'll call Wiley next week. -JCarriker 09:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal alert

I may need your help with a possible revert war, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States the guy came in and deleted everything we built. Travb 18:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help man Travb 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your reply to EffK on Great Scandal

You advised EffK that, if he thinks information is being censored, he can file an RfC and then proceed to arbitration. He has been saying for six months that arbitration will be required. As of today he has the right to request arbitration of any issues that he chooses to present as a defense or counter-claim. The ArbCom has accepted my RfAr against him. He has the same right as any defendant to present any counter-arguments. Robert McClenon 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Please talk to your countryfellow (I guess...). He is on the straight road to be banned for good. See his last contribution at Talk:Moldovan language. mikka (t) 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

216.221.81.98

From what I understand, they get randomly thrown about by ISP's. I often have a 24.226.something...(occasionally it logs me out and I don't notice it until editing) CrazyC83 15:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dreadlocks and vandals

Hey. :)

You have so much on your plate, I hate to ask -- but I value your opinion.

If/when you have an opportunity, would you please drop by dreadlocks? User: Coyep is intent on using a photo which does not, unfortunately, illustrate the subject at hand. Further, he insists on deleting some text I wrote about the possible connection between Egyptian dreadlocks and the phenomenon in India. I'd like your take on the disputes. Thanks. I've also asked for User:Guettarda's input.

I've been meaning to drop by with a note of appreciation for your seemingly tireless work in keeping vandals and wackos at bay on various black-related articles. What a crappy task. I wouldn't have the patience. So, here's a thank-you for your efforts. I (and I know others) appreciate it. A lot. Peace. :) deeceevoice 21:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. deeceevoice 15:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila massacre

Have you seen the change of the Norwegian diplomat's name at Sabra and Shatila massacre? I'm not sure what to make of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sergiu Nicolaescu

Hi. I left a message on the Sergiu Nicolaescu talk page. Maybe you are interested. If not, sorry. - AdamSmithee 10:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Anti-war project, push to get a featured article b4 Xmass

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, an article which is part of the WikiProject Anti-war of which you are listed as a member, has been recently rated A-class by the Version 1.0 Editorial team (see here) This means that it is considered to be of good quality. The Anti-war project has yet to achieve a featured article but with a little pushing I feel we could get this article up to FA standards. To this end I have put the article up for peer review, if you could help make this a brilliant article that would be much appreciated. Please give your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive2 or on the articles talk page. Fingers crossed for a FA before Xmass.--JK the unwise 12:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Scandal

Sorry, Jmabel, for rambling but I got drawn into it again. At least, I hope my first post answered your questions, though it doesn't matter now does it. I only posted there to clarify FK's post since I'm for familiar with his style and his thoughts that you are. I hadn't posted before because I think the article irredeemably flawed. Regards, Str1977 09:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bucharest

Hi Joe! I've added the Architecture section to the Bucharest article. I think the article is nearly ready to go through peer review - the only thing left to add is contrasts between districts (i.e. north-south, income, etc) as well as more info to the Law & government section (justice, crime, development regions, national government). Is there anything else you would like to add? Especially in the architecture section, since you've been to Bucharest a few times? Any ideas on reforming the article's structure? Thanks, Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 10:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Melendez

Why {{crime-bio-stub}} on Benjamin Melendez? I'm not aware of him ever having been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. If he was, certainly no mention of it in the article, nor on the first 10 or so things about him I can find online. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Street gangs are generally involved in crime, and while the little I've seen indicates that the Ghetto Brothers may have been the exception that proves the rule, there isn't a present a better stub. If the proposed {{gang-stub}} gets created, it would definitely be a better stub type than {{crime-bio-stub}} in this case, but it doesn't exist yet. Caerwine 14:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical

Thanks for correcting "historical" into "historic" multiple times! I'm really used to writing "historical" even though, like "economical", it isn't really correct in all contexts. I've just become so used to it that I don't realise it when I'm writing... I should pay more attention, though :) It's strange, though, that even most dictionaries seem to regard the two as synonyms. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 09:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Catalan constitutions titles

Thanks for your rewritting! I left you a comment there.--Friviere / Talk 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

More references here:http://usuarios.lycos.es/succedani/webhistoriacat.htm (google is NOT the Bible!: I deserved a Wifywaffle on Gaspar de Portolà article to show that also there the Google evidence was wrong :))--Friviere 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting Request

Hi Jmabel. You were one of the original editors of the American Liberalism article. Recently a POV section has been causing a great deal of contention. We have a poll to eliminate the contentious section on American Liberalism that you had earlier commented about. I know that we've disagreed on some details before but I don't think you will find this section acceptable either. Would you mind coming to the page to vote "No?" The poll runs for two weeks. It's at the bottom of the page [6] luketh 20:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I already lost the poll. What's unfortunate, however, is that I'm the only liberal editor. I know that you are also liberal. The page before I edited it today read as follows:

Many conservatives, especially in the right-wing media, use the term liberal as a slur. In one of the 2004 presidential debates, George W. Bush described his opponent as the most liberal member of the the Senate [2]. In the 1960s, the catch phrase was "bleeding heart" liberals, who opposed the Vietnam War, or "knee-jerk" liberals, implying that liberals loved Blacks, poor people, criminals, and foreigners indiscriminately. In the 1990s, the phrase was "tax-and-spend" liberals, with the implication that liberals were in favor of taxing the rich in order to redistribute wealth to the poor in the form of expensive social welfare programs. In the early 21st Century, conservatives commonly accuse the media of "liberal bias". As evidence, they claim that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times and others routinely report negative stories about conservative politicians and causes. Republican talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is often credited with the perpetuation of these phrases. (See also Politicized issues, Propaganda). Republican political consultant Arthur J. Finkelstein took this technique to its fullest extent, repeating the word "liberal" in negative television commercials as frequently as possible, such as in this mid-1990s example: That's liberal. That's Jack Reed. That's wrong. Call liberal Jack Reed and tell him his record on welfare is just too liberal for you. [3] U.S. conservatives in recent years, especially those of the Republican Party, sometimes use liberal to describe anyone who is a member of or supports any policy of the Democratic Party. Being a Democrat does not guarantee one is a liberal, as there are many within the party who are centrist and even a few who could be considered right-wing.

There's no way that my changes, the version that you read, is going to last for more than a day, and I can't spend all my time trying to fight against slurs. This is part of a bigger debate wherein FoxNews and a few conservatives are trying to define the word "liberal" when they don't even know what "liberal" means. They've already knocked Classical Liberalism away from us even though American liberals are closer in spirit to Classical liberals than conservatives are. By destroying the word "liberal" they're making huge electoral gains. This debate has nothing to do with American Liberalism at all; we're giving coverage to a political strategy that is working. But, enough, I've had my day. Let them destroy the article and the name of my political philosophy if they wish. Ultimately Wikipedia is a democracy and NPOV is only what people say it is. If you had voted against covering this topic on Wikipedia, it would have been a shot in the arm, though we still would have lost. There's no way to create a fair article on American Liberalism when the editors are conservatives. All I ask is that you visit every once in awhile and help me fix it up when it gets really bad. Wikipedia has a substantial readership and we should do our part not to let dishonest political campaigns carry the day. luketh 01:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Short explanation

Hello Joe. I would like to thank you one more time for all. By the way you've added "although the 1992 Romanian orthographic reform was never adopted in Moldova." I don't think is 100% correct. What are the facts? The facts are that the orthographic reform from 1990s is a return to the orthographic writting system before World War II. Before it was written with â instead of î. So, because of the fact that Moldova was part of Romania before the war they did used this system. You can find old manuals that uses that system. Of course the language is changing. Long time ago there was also this kind of writting "m'am dus" instead of presently "m-am dus" and so on...Thank you. Bonaparte talk & contribs 09:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I not correct that in Moldova, they continue to use î pretty much uniformly? "Pîine", for example, which if you see it in Romania means you are looking at a very old sign. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

They use now "Pîine" for sure. But before 1945? They used "Pâine". In the official form. But like I said before on the talk page of M. language nowadays both system are used in both countries. There are gov. institutions, newspapers and so on in both countries that are using both systems. This is only a rule rather than "difference". It is like ss/ß in German. Bonaparte talk & contribs 09:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing

Thanks for supporting intelligent use of the wikipedia. Your contribution to the talk on Fascism and Fundamental Controls in wiki was timely and appropriate. --Dschor 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Reactionary

Just a quick note, Jmabel, to tell you that I am pleased with your recent edit at Reactionary. Str1977 11:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Orioane

Thanks for your appreciation. You are right about my english and I do not mind at all to copy-editing my articles, but contrary, I am quite happy that an native english speaker corrects them, so that I can see were I got it wrong. I think it's a typical problem, when it is simple talk like on the talk pages there is no problem expressing myself, but when I try to express more complicated ideeas I get into trouble - obvious lack of vocabulary of which I am well aware of and try, as much as the time allows, to correct it, but it takes time. For now I am just editing the Culture of Romania article and I make small additions here and there. As you saw, I try to help on the Bucharest article, but there I only give ideeas tor Ronline - because it is his article :D. Also I hope to improve the article on Sibiu and to write more about its suroundings, but for that I'll have to gather some material on the Christmas Holliday. On more think though, I don't know what to do about the references in the Culture of Romania article, because most of it I made it myself from what I know and I think that up until now, it is mostly info that any decent Romanian should know. Eventualy I could add some references to Romanian literature and history highschool manuals and I'll try to look into the Dilema archive to find some references for the recent period, .

Thanks one more time --Orioane 09:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte 14:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joe! Please look at the contributions of Alex. I would like to change your position. I would like you to vote for fim, to support him. Support him Joe! He made a very good job at those illirian, greek, ancient stuff and so on. Why you think is not good? Because I've proposed him? I have no interest, and you may ask Ronline also. I just want that the right people to have what they deserve. I won't forgive myself that I didn't proposed Bogdan. You see now he left Wiki. Look at the last weeks, he didn't have contributions, if you think that I proposed him to come to the Moldovan site you're wrong. We can easly handle that kid without any other help. We aslo have Oleg, or Ronline who are sysop and they are the same good contributors like others. Sometimes if you don't give the people the chance they will get stuck. I know he's good and Wiki need a man like him. I hope you understand that people who is qualified must progress. Value before politics. Bonaparte

Bonaparte, don't be such a n00b. Jmabel has known Alex much longer than you have. They have worked together and at one time, when Alex was blocked, Jmabel supported him. Bogdan was already a moderator or admin. He still is. --Anittas 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you please assume good faith, and assume (unless demonstrated otherwise), that my reasons for neutrality at this time are exactly the ones I've given? I rarely vote on admin candidates, and never vote on one who is yet to indicate an interest in being an admin and to answer the basic questions about what he/she will do as an admin. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. But I just want to assure you that I don't have any *misterious interests. Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Our forum

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 17:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Romania

Hi, I see you've lived in Romania (from your webpage updates). How's the situation there? Also, Mabel...odd variation of a name I usually see, what is it?

Anyway, aside from the chitchat -- I want to see if you can help me make some articles on the list of Romanians page. I'll be starting them shortly. HotelRoom 05:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read your journal-thing http://www.speakeasy.org/~jmabel/travels/romania1.html thats why I was curious about any final thoughts, but seeing as you're right - it's changing fast - I guess I can just leave it at that.

Anyway, I joined the board and asked for help. HotelRoom 06:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(Reference to Romanian actors) They are - I took them from there as a sampling - which I've seen done a lot on these pages. HotelRoom 00:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Researching with Wikipedia

Wow, I don't remember having seen that page. I answer a good deal of mail sent to the Wikipedia information address; I'll be sure to mention it so it will get more attention by outsiders who write us to ask. Remiss of me not to have noticed it before! BTW, thanks for the hard work you do around here, both in article space and out of it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War. Foreing assistance financing

I casually walked thru the article and it's talk page, and I found your signature wondering about several aspects about how foreing aid was payed. It seems (my source is the often provocative book from Pio Moa "Los mitos de la guerra civil") that the "Republican" side, had mostly to pay cash (againts the gold reserves, since 1937 in custody in Russia), and that the "nationalists" managed to finance on it bland loans with Italy and Germany (so bland that almost nothing was left off to pay at the end of WWII). It also seems that the russian weren't exactly billing at "friend's prices". If you're still interested i'll try to pick for you more detailed references. (A note of warning) Moa's works sparked a monstruous uproar this last years in Spain, as he has put into question most of the late historiographical production about the spanish civil war.--Wllacer 12:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance

Hello, I am a user from the Catalan Wikipedia (Montag73) and the writer of the article on the Triple Alliance War there. I am a reader of the English Wikipedia and I have been reading some of your contributions in the Catalan related subjects. In my opinion the Catalan article for the Triple Alliance War is pretty good, although it is more focused on the political aspects of the war than in the war itself. So, I encourage you to use any part of it you think could be useful for the English article.

Best regards, Salvador —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 5 Dec 2005 (ca:usuari:montag73)

Culture of Romania

Hi,

I used the {{Inuse}} tag on the article only for about 3 hours yesterday evening (for me), between 20:00 and 23:00. After I finished the 3 chapters I removed it, and now it is {{Underconstruction}} tag hich doesn't state that the article is inuse. :D So there is no problem to edit now the article. Anyways, I barely wait your impression on my contributions yesterday evening, because I was hungry and in a funny mood.:D

Thx --Orioane 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion it is something like: "Hy, Someone works on this article, but not for the moment. You are allowed to make modifications!" as opposed to inuse which is clearly "Don't touch" Anyways, the article has become quite consistent by now, almost nobody helped so I think we can remove it. --Orioane 07:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the conflict, I saw you haven't made any contributions for a period, and I beleived you stopped editing (I know it is about midnight at you). Thx for the corrections, I will check them out and good night. --Orioane 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)