User talk:Jmabel/Archive 29

Infobox President

Hi. There has been a mess on that template. As a hot fix I've created template:Infobox President old. Please use that on all articles that you see broken. Many articles have already been converted to a new parameter set, so they now need the new version of Netoholic in order not to break. Adrian Buehlmann 02:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please address further concerns regarding template:Infobox President to User:Netoholic. template:Infobox President old is now orphaned (not used) and I put it up for a speedy delete. Adrian Buehlmann 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg

Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg: the justifications given there look pretty solid to me; I'm not sure exactly what your bot is looking for, so I'm not sure what additional it might want. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's looking for the tags {{nosource}}, {{unknown}}, or equivalent. It doesn't care about any of the other tags, or any other text on the page. --Carnildo 04:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So, do you think that particular image has problems? And if so, precisely what? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that it's tagged with the {{no license}} and {{tv-screenshot}} templates. It could use a bit more detail on the source (what the broadcast was, when it was made, and so forth), but mostly it's fine. --Carnildo 04:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

coffee or some such sounds good

what part of town are you in? --Lukobe 10:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in Wedgwood, but I range widely. My orbit includes pretty much anything in city limits. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Roosevelt. Somewhere in 98115 or 98105 would make most sense, I guess...got any fave coffee spots? --Lukobe 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

update

Good to see you Joe in 2006! You should make an update on your user page ;) Bogdan is back again by long time now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmabel#Trust  :) Bonaparte talk 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mulţumesc Joe, gândurile şi urările mele de bine ţie şi familiei tale şi un start bun în Anul Nou! Bonaparte talk 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia R/E

Please remember that there is an ongoing conversation at User talk:JCarriker/Wikipedia: Race and Ethnicity. Please add it to your watchlist and/or check for new posts regularly. PS Can you believe we have been editing wikipedia over a period that spans four seperate years? Thanks. -JCarriker 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the page is inactive, which is why I reminded everyone who was invited that it is meant to be an ongoing dialog. Also off topic, I tried making contact with Wiley before their Christmas break and literally got no response, no person or machine responded to the phone call. I did talk with a local historian who collaborates often with Wiley and she gave me a contact name. I'll try to get a yea or nay response before the Seattle meetup, I can be just as persistent/annoying in real life as I am online. ;) -JCarriker 18:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

new noticeboard

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

mikka is gone

Mikka is gone. How many times I told him to stop it? Bonaparte talk 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Hi Joe! Thanks for your comments! Hopefully the current state of crisis that the Romanian Wikipedia community finds itself in can be overcome. Maybe something like a group mediation session would be good. Ronline ✉ 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK

Since you are obviously coming from a very different place than either Cberlet or myself, can you make any sense of EffK's comments at Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts? He and I are both bewildered. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You wrote me an email about this once, which I answered. I never heard back, have you read it? Sam Spade 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal about categories and subcategories

I've posted a proposal about categories and subcategories here. Please take a look. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest between world wars

Salut Joe! Am gasit un site interesant cu multe imagini din perioada interbelica. Sper sa-ti placa.

• http://www.maerlant.be/cesiexhibit/index.htm
• http://www.maerlant.be/cesiexhibit/exhibition/html/new_ways/02_victoriei_noon.htm

Cand mai vii in Romania? Bonaparte talk 11:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The links I found them independently searching in google for "victory avenue" http://www.google.ro/search?hl=de&q=victory+avenue&meta= and the second link was those above. I have to admit that you were "schneller" then me. Bonaparte talk 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The Squirrels, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements

Salut Joe! Do you know this link? I just know it from yesterday and please post there your new articles on Romania related topics so we could see them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements

Bonaparte talk 14:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

blanking my talk page

I blanked my talk page because the only two things on there were the "Welcome to Wikipedia" drivel, plus one comment from one user about an add I did that was later taken away. I fully intend to let subsequent additions to my user talk page stand without blanking them. Come to think of it, why am I even bothering to defend myself to you? I think I'll stop now, 'cuz it's pointless. So was your message, even though I'm not exactly PO'ed about it or anything. Kiko 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on el Teatro Campesino!

and for the images. Thanks! Joaquin Murietta 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

László Tőkés

I see that you tagged László Tőkés, primarily my work, as a copyvio. You did not give any indication of what you claim to be the issue, and appear not to have followed through with posting to WP:CP; I have now done the latter, at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_January_4. I have also remarked there on why I do not believe there is a copyvio problem in the article. You may want to comment on what you believe to be a problem. -- Jmabel | Talk 12:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't know how to state it and where to comment about it, but it seems for me for a first impression that is copyvio. I will look one more time. Yes, it is for all paragraphs something like this [Deletant, online, p. 51,...etc]. Isn't it this word by word? Bonaparte talk 12:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the {{copyvio}} notice. I've made a note on the relevant subpage of WP:CP indicating that the matter is resolved. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Next time I will be more careful. Please Joe, look at Transnistria as well. There were allegations of copyvio from node, since is not the matter can you explain him? Theresa did and still not get it. That would be very nice. Bonaparte talk 06:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Single-handed sailors

I hope my new category is self-explanatory enough: Category:Pole vaulters with seven or fewer toes.  ;-) Seriously, thanks, I've obviously been living with the subject more than most people. — Johantheghost 01:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers used instead of blogs

I would like your feedback on the use of newspapers as a source instead of blogs. In the case of the Robert Clark Young article, I have found newspaper sources that cover much of the same material as the blogs that have been used in the article. When I replaced the blog sources with the newspaper sources, Alabamaboy reverted every single one of my edits. Also, very strangely, he accused me on the discussion page of being Mr. Young himself!

This is the Wikipedia Guideline I am trying to follow with my edits:

"Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources."

Thus, I have replaced the blog sources with newspaper sources. Again, let me stress that this has not led to much change in the text of the article itself--what I'm trying to do here is change the nature of the sources so that they themselves comply with Wikipedia Guidelines.

Could Alabamaboy and I get some feedback on this? I wonder if you could go over to the Robert Clark Young history and compare both versions of the sourcing--the one using newspapers, and the one using blogs. Thank you. Berenise 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware that there are three reasons the article was reverted: 1) Berenise made the changes despite a lack of consensus and my objections on the Talk:Robert Clark Young. In short, the online references are refered to in the newspaper and print articles, making the online sources primary sources. The article also has many print sources which complement and add to the online sources. 2) The edits made the article less NPOV b/c they removed opposing viewpoints. While these references may be online, they are from credible named sources who are considered experts in their respected areas. 3) There is a strong possibility that Berenise is Robert Clark Young. Young previously edited the article about himself and most of Berenise's edits since coming to Wikipedia have been to the Young article. I'm trying to clear this up with Berenise; once she proves she is not Young I'd love to get opinions from other editors about this situation. For full details, see Talk:Robert Clark Young. --Alabamaboy 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Level

Hello Joe, I wanted to change your user page to change the level of romanian to 3. After your so good translation I can bet that your level is even better. Trust me, you may change there, in fact you can give this edit as reference to this. You did a great job helping me these days with those articles. Have I forget to thank you, I have to say right now: thank you. Bonaparte talk 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Still a candidate

I wrote: "Unless I get apologies for unjust blocking when I was fending off trolls I am not returning to editing". I also wrote "At the moment I simply don't know what to do. So bug off while I am mad and cannot think clearly." mikka (t) 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

believers?

"1046 believers of Polish ethnicity": what does this mean? How is one a "believer" of an ethnicity? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Original text in romanian is: "Comunitatea din Soloneţu Nou (cu filialele Solca, Plesa, Racova, Arbore) numără 365 de familii cu 1046 de credincioşi de etnie poloneză. " (http://www.ercis.ro/actualitate/viata.asp?id=20040326)

• Maybe polish believers is better? Bonaparte talk 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Translations of the Week

We've made a little Transltion collaboration on Wiktionary. I've tried to "advertise" it around Wikipedia a bit, and was wondering if you knew of a good place to tell the multilingual Wikipedians about it? Thanks --Wonderfool 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco

Hi Joe, the arbcom has ruled that SEWilco may not change an article from one citation style (e.g. embedded links) to another (e.g. footnotes). The ruling was a consequence of his having done this a lot against consensus and against WP:CITE. (I'm not sure what you mean by blind links being deprecated at CITE because they're not, unless I've misunderstood you.) He changed the citation style at Sea level rise yesterday, reverting against one of the editors on the page, and was therefore blocked. Someone has suggested that, in future, if he wants to change a citation style, he should do it on a draft page, and ask on talk whether anyone agrees with him. If they do, they can paste the changes into the article. But the point is he shouldn't be the one to change the article. If he only wants to improve citations, there's nothing to stop him, but in that case he has make the improvements within whichever citation style the page currently uses. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe not exactly deprecated, but "anyone who takes a random sample of these will find dead embedded links. Also, such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be difficult to rediscover the cited material, which is why it is particularly important to include a full citation in the References section." That's not exactly praise. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What that section means is that a full citation must be added to the References section. It's the same with footnotes. You wouldn't add a number to the text, but then not add the corresponding footnote in the Notes section, or add a Harvard reference and not add a citation to References. All three styles deliver exactly the same information if used correctly. But that's a separate issue. Regardless of which style anyone prefers, SEWilco should not change from one to the other, simply because he did it so much that people complained about it, and so the arbcom made their ruling. Let me know if that's explained the block to you, or whether I'm still missing something. I'm very willing to give him the benefit of any doubt, but I couldn't see any in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Redirect

Hi. The recent edit you made on Template:Redirect creates an extra white space on all the articles that it's in. Instead on having the <noinclude> on a separate line, it should look like this:

:<span class="dablink">'' "{{{1}}}" redirects here. For other uses, see [[{{{1}}} (disambiguation)]].''</span><noinclude>

Thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you did, thanks again. --Khoikhoi 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

New historians

Hello Jmabel. I agree with your corrections but have some comments :

Note I had not removed that sentence : 'According to the New Historians, Israel therefore has its own share of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight' but pushed it below in the article because I had added Pappé arguments explaining why it was his analysis and added they also push arab countries in the list of responsibles. This is now two times in the article... I suggest we remove the first one it appears.

More Newehistorians clearly claim that they don't think Jewish leaders planned or organized the exodus of Palestinians. I have clear quote from Pappé stating this. Do you have quotes from others that would not think so ?

User:ChrisC 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

I've reverted Jacrosse's edits to Neoconservatism in the United States for the ninth time and protected the edit conflict. I also filed a request for comment on the page. He seems to have an aversion to discussing the concerns that you, I, and Hippo43 raised on the talk page. What do you think can be done to bring him around? —thames 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mircea Cartarescu

Hi there! What do you think of my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_C%C4%83rt%C4%83rescu&diff=34484974&oldid=34451595 For the first one I'm not sure, it is my attempt of translating Romanian "funcţionar" via the French "fonctionnaire" (and this is what I've got from the babelfish, but I'm pretty much sure there is even a better word). For the second, I think this is the correct translation of Romanian "catedră" (in an University environment): chair. Hope this helps! --Vlad 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

Good job supplying all those references, Joe. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Catalan-speaking world

Thank you for your excellent work on Template:Catalan-speaking world. And a happy 2006! --Joan sense nick 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad decision !

Hi Joe: When most people log on they are taken to the Main Page, and the ArbCom vote link should be on EVERY article, putting it on watchlists marginalizes it, and if you have a rule that users need to be active for a few months then their vote won't be registered regardless of what page they come from. At this stage it's more important to educate new users and the public about an important vote taking place within Wikipedia than to have the request for MONEY on every page which makes Wikipedia look greedy after they just raised around $300,000, don't you think? Get rid of the merchandising and commercializing junk and mention the ArbCom stuff that is more to the core of what Wikipedia is about, a participatory effort and not just a scheme to raise money. Some of us are having trouble writing and editing articles with that flashing "Dollar sign" on top of every page. I hope you understand the importance of this. It's about the kind of image Wikipedia wants to project about itself, and someone has made a bad decision here lately it seems to me. IZAK 18:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem !

Ok, so this is the sequence of events: I am a frequent user of Wikipedia. I log onto the Main Page. I have heard about the ArbCom elections. I don't understand why there is no link to the ArbCom vote on the Main Page, I then click/look at this article and that article, still no sign of an ArbCom vote. I stare hard at the page, and all I see is links at the top making appeals for more MONEY by Mr. Wales. I think to myself: Heck didn't they just finish with an appeal that gained them over 300,000 bucks, so why are they pushing new links to sell me junk, when all I want is to go vote in an important election? Then I think, hey, wait a minute, didn't they say that the appeal/s would be limited to "four times a year" (also too many compared to the number of past appeals we were subjected to) and I figure, you know, they maybe don't care enough about the ArbCom votes because if they did they would make space for that link on the top of every page instead of subjecting people to solicitations for more $$$,$$$. I have been a Wikipedian for over three years, and I have not seen this kind of fundraising push aside other more normative functions of Wikipedia, like ArbCom votes. Face the fact, there is something wrong if users have to stare at a fundraisng link now ALL THE TIME, and only get to find out about ArbCom votes when they finally get around to looking at their "watchlists". If people don't see the problem here, then they should get their (MORAL) vision checked. IZAK 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

deeceevoice's departure

If you're interested in speculating about deeceevoice's departure. -- Jim Apple 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

George Reeves

Take a gander at the history of that chracter's continual vandalism of the Reeves page, as anon and as User:Projects and User:Vesa. Thankfully, I think most of his sockpuppets are blocked now. I just hope they keep the Reeves page locked down for a month or two and hopefully that lunatic will go away... but I wouldn't count on it. Wahkeenah 10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Wahkeenah 10:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I had decided to withdraw my most recent fire-back to that lunatic, letting your response to my comment stay seemed a bit silly. But I can put it back if you want. Wahkeenah 10:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• The first time that character tried to insert his poorly-written POV stuff (which did little more than restate what I had already written in a NEUTRAL fashion), I responded in a friendly way and told him Reeves was my hero also. He ignored that. I don't think he cares about the Reeves story one iota; this is all just some deal he has latched onto in order to annoy people. Unless I get something positive back this time, I will have to "shut him out"; in other words, silently revert his junk in the article (once he or it get unblocked) and not give him any more satisfaction by responding to any of his rants in any talk page. :\ Wahkeenah 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That guy seems to have cooled his jets a bit. I don't know if we're out of the woods yet and/or if he just found a new target. Wahkeenah 12:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I was looking at his "contributions" as per your posting on the Reeves talk page. If you look at that one IP address, plus others he has used, plus his various sockpuppets (such as User:Vesa) you can see the same pattern of fixating on an alleged fact or two and hurling broken-English insults at whoever crosses him. One giveaway is his interest in Stalin, Tito, etc., along with his writing which "sounds like" someone with a Slavic or Russian accent, so it looks like he's from that region. That would account for his attitude, as living in Eastern Europe is not much fun under the best of circumstances. Wahkeenah 13:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest

I would like to put February 15, 2003 anti-war protest up for FA status soon. In your opion is it ready?--JK the unwise 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page.--JK the unwise 10:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Saxon/Székely Chairs or Seats

Sorry, my English is not perfect. As you know, Saxons and Székelys were organised into little independent territorial units (of similar size of a Swiss canton). These units were called "szék", which in English means chair or seat. In the Transylvaian Saxons article, "chairs" is used in one sentence: "During the reign of the King Charles I of Hungary (probably 1325-1329), the Saxons were organized in the Saxon Chairs." I was just wondering if CHAIRS or SEATS is more appropriate to describe these territorial units.
The reason I am asking this is that I would like to type in the list of the five major Székely Seats/Chairs, when I will have time in the next couple of days. --KIDB 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I finally saw what you were driving at when I looked at Sălişte. In English we refer to the "Seven seats of Saxondom" in Transylvania. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --KIDB 07:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

I've done some research today about the saxon organisation in Transylvania and I found quite some interesting things. [1] It looks like there are three notions which were clarified a little bit:

• Universitas Saxorum: was the assembly of all the saxon inhabited regions from Transylvania. It existed from 1486-1487, until 1876, and was mainly based in Sibiu. There were three big regions that comprised it: the Sibiu region (Comitatus Cibiniensis in Southern Transylvania - around the Sibiu Depresion and Olt river valley (Altland), along the Mures River up till Orastie (Unterwald), and the Târnava rivers valleys(Weinland)), the Burzenland or Brasov region, and the Nösnerland or Bistrita region.

• Saxon Chairs: In each of the three regions it existed a smaller organisation into chairs, independent of the chrch since the 14th century. In Sibiu region, initialy there were seven chairs: Orastie, Sebes, Miercurea Sibiului, Sibiu, Nocrich, Cincu and Rupea and later another three were created: Sighisoara, Medias si Seica Mare. They comprised all the villages around them, regardless of the ethnical composition (see Saliste). Later, due to the increased influence of the big cities, the chairs were important only in the rural areas, in Sibiu for example tha organisation became more complex (see [2]).

• Siebenbürgen: as the name states has to do something about seven cities and mostly the seven cities are considered to be: Klausenburg (Cluj), Kronstadt (Braşov), Hermannstadt (Sibiu), Schässburg (Sighişoara), Mediasch (Mediaş), Mühlbach (Sebeş), and Bistritz (Bistriţa). Also there are some other ideeas, related to the name of Cibinburg - an old name for Sibiu.

So, I don't think we should make an article about the seven seats of Saxondom but I propose one about the Saxon province of Sibiu from the Universitas Saxorum, because there are already articles about Burzenland and Nösnerland. Mihai -^talk 15:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bugger

That is irksom. Thanks for picking up on it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)