User talk:Jmabel/Archive 38

Kent-Meridian High School

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, I just thought you'd like to know that the consensus for deleting High School articles now appears to be swinging back in favor of deletion. So this may indicate the beginning of another campaign to remove most High School articles. Your opinion on the AfD article would be appreciated. It might be helpful if a notability standard for High Schools could be agreed upon. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem remarks

from what i understood, Anittas is a romanian living in Sweden since childhood. if u investigate the forum where he posts the most, u will see he is seen by most romanians there as "disconnected from romanian realities". in my opinnion he developed an ultra regional-nationalist xenofobia towards inhabitants of city of Bucharest, and everything pertaining to the historical region of Vallachia. he flamed me on that forum to the point i left that forum (since the owner of that forum gave him mod), and after i left that forum the guy created an account on wikipedia. he flamed me right here on wikipedia on his user page, u can check the history of that page to verify he is an internet troll. i completely ignored him, didnt request any admin to sanction him (since i am not too skilled in administrative matters) and i removed flame comments from my user page. i had to concentrate on a project for the last 12 months, and just came back to wikipedia, and seen he was banned from wikipedia for trolling. i am just informing u about the objectivity and his capacity of reasoning/understanding things. u know my behaviour, i admit i dont have the perfect diplomativ behaviour, being a little too patriotic and stuff, making fast edits to articles without discussing them on talk pages first, but in the end i try to remain objective, and i am trying to develop myself as a responsible contributor of wikipedia. Criztu 20:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I have been very clear with Anittas about what I don't like about his style. As I understand it, all the issues with him have been about him being insulting and abrasive; no one seems to be questioning his intellectual honesty. That is, if he cites a source, I trust him to quote it accurately about as much as I trust anyone else.

I wish Wikipedia had an equivalent of a "moderated account" where someone with positive contributions to make but who also posts inappropriate material could have their postings checked before they go live, but we don't, and I can't see how one would easily do such a thing in a Wiki. I am trying to do a virtual equivalent of that by letting Anittas write me on substantive matters, and posting the appropriate portion of his comments. - Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

well his "-lea" means "son of" in Romanian" might be honest and good intention, but it is way disconected from romanian reality. there is no such name construction in contemporary romanian language, and I am not aware of any archaic rule of romanian language by which "-lea" at the end of a name comes from "son of". propaganda uses true information but truncated and incomplete, in order to change the message contained in that information. that would be all i have to say about ad hominem attacks Criztu 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i will ask u permission to discard this discussion from my talkpage, i am fine wih u if u want to keep this discussion on your talkpage or discard it Criztu 21:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove from your talk page, though I will remind you that you started the discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, i started discussion, and on your page, thats why i asked u permission, and expressed my position Criztu 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg

Hi Joe: Could you please take a look Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Editors of Hebrew and Yiddish pages have come across User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg's work over the years. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in the current RfC. Your views would be appreciated as this appears to be a cultural miscommunication too. Thank you IZAK 04:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing deleted article links

Sorry about that. I think I was in autopilot then. Which is no excuse. But when you are assigned to remove any links to a non-notable person to prevent further article creation, I haven't thought twice about the context of deleting the link. Thanks for the giving the heads-up, and if this response is unsatisfactory, please leave a note at my talk page. Sorry for any inconvience. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism article

Hi, Joe. I know you were an editor for the Liberalism article before. Right now, its existence is being questioned by folks who think it should be replaced by a disambiguation page. The thing is up to a vote. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this. Lucidish 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Melendez

Sorry about the stub-sort on Benjamin Melendez. I noticed the Category:Gang members, and to me that usually indicated {{crime-bio-stub}}. Also, {{gang-stub}} is a redirect to {{crime-org-stub}}. So, based on first glance, {{crime-bio-stub}} seems to be the way to go, but you are correct in that he hasn't been involved in any crimes so that stub isn't correct. Thanks for pointing out my mistake and I'll try to look more closely at my stubs from now on. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

An HTML note is not a bad idea. I've seen that on a number of articles and it definitely helps out when I go to stub-sort something. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism and radicalism in France

Hi Jmabel! I left a (too big) answer in the talk page. I hope I wasn't too obscure... Cheers! Tazmaniacs 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Zazaki Wikipedia

Hi Jmabel, In January, you voted neutral to our Zazaki Wikipedia request because you thought there are not enough Zazaki articles.

Neutral: http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategor%C3%AE:Zazak%C3%AE certainly seems to provide an incubator for articles written in Zazaki. There don't currently appear to me to be enough of these to really merit starting another Wikipedia. -- en:user:Jmabel 14:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC) [1]

Here we created a nice test-wikipedia [2]. We put a lot of work into it, and there are many good articles [3]. It is one of the best among the test wikipedias [4] and even better than some active wikipedias. We are very serious and commited to this project, and we terribly need the Zazaki Wikipedia to protect and develop our language. Can you reconsider your vote? Thanks, --Daraheni 03:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting Page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Requests_for_new_languages/diq

Hi again Jmabel, I don't want to be annoying, but I can assure you that there are more than a dozen serious Zazaki contributers. You can check our Zazaki test-wikipedia history pages.--Daraheni 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ICRC move/creation

Hello Jmabel, for the past few months I've been writing a new International Committee of the Red Cross article. I'm finally satisfied enough to propose its move into the main namespace, though it's far from perfect. That article is at User:Draeco/ICRC, and I've proposed a move here. You may not feel well-versed enough in the area, but if so I hope you can take the time to give your opinion, you've always seemed competent in our previous run-ins - Draeco 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for opining at the discussion about the proposed move/creation for a new ICRC article. If you know anyone else well-versed in the area, please ask them to do the same, whether yea or ney. I've seen too many discussions reach a lack of concensus simply because not enough people chimed in, and I don't want that to happen here. If you can't spare the time for a personalized message, you can copy the second paragraph of this page as it appears and paste into people's talk pages. Thanks again. - Draeco 09:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: US vs. UK punctuation

Sounds reasonable enough. Thanks for informing me of this fact, of which I was not fully aware. I will adjust my future actions/edits accordingly. -Seidenstud 19:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comma inside the quotation marks! Like putting the left foot in the right trouser leg Pliny 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pet peeve

Why would it bother you that English Wikipedia “chooses” the English spellings of Catalonia and Majorca? —Wiki Wikardo

"Majorca" especially bothers me because I think it is archaic and falling out of use. And it often leads to a pronunciation that is dead wrong. Somewhat the same on "Catalonia", but Orwell's famous book will certainly keep that spelling in the language, if only as a common alternative. But also it is a little weird that we effectively end up with the Castilian name of a place where much of the population rather resents historic Castilian domination. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I’m wrong—no hablo bien catalán—but isn’t the difference between the Castillian spelling and the Catalan spelling of Catalonia an Ñ versus an NY? —Wiki Wikardo

That's just orthography; the issue as an "O" vs. a "U", which really does affect pronunciation. (Y yo no hablo tampoco catalán, pero puedo leerlo.) But there is another issue: In Spain, for Catalan-speaking regions, even the central government now pretty consistently uses Catalan placenames. The Spanish names, in writing, tend to suggest centralizing Spanish-nationalist politics. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ov coz, but I don’t see an O spelling favours Spanish nationalism or Castilian namez. Hey, Wiki! 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So after minor poking around, as near as I can infer, the English name is derived from a French one (Paris dialect, Occitan)… So how do you propose it’s spelled in English? I still don’t see how spelling the word with an O (which neither Spanish nor Catalan does) endorses a Spanish nationalist agenda.

As for Majorca, so the traditional English spelling is giving way to adopting the Iberian one. Why you gonna spend energy hating on it for not dying out fast enough? Is muh-JOR-kuh really any worse than muh-LOR-kuh?^* At least the former approximates how an Argentinian might pronounce it… —Wiki Wikardo 01:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

* Sound like a sick whale.

I stand corrected on the "Catalonia" spelling. I still think that places in that region should consistently be given their Catalan names. - Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: If you wish to start an RFC

RFC is Request For Comment?

I think the problem was the internal spamming done by User:RJHall as noted by User:Metros232 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School.

User:RJHall spammed everyone on the WP:SCH membership list, as he admits and was proud he did so. In his words, after his spamming was noted on the site: "Yup I did. The delete High School discussion is a recurring theme in AfD, and I was hoping to use the latest rallying cry of the deletists." The nomination thus became a political issue with me targeted as one of the "deletists".

Consequently many riled up people voted who did not bother to even look at the article or read the preceding comments and the hysteria escalated.

I think such use of internal spamming to turn a nomination into a polictical issue that targets the person nominating should be firmly discouraged or even forbidden. (I know Wikipedia does not to forbid things.) Things are political enough without systematic methods of encouraging it.

I thought the nominations were for discussion and information-sharing. But I have been intimidated by that experience and will not BE BOLD. KarenAnn 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, this is exactly why you might want to start a request for comment: to turn the community's attention to an instance of bullying, rather than be successfully intimidated. But if you are more comfortable letting the bullies win this one, I certainly won't try to bully you into facing them down! Anyway, if you do want to take some sort of action on this, I promise to back you up. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: letting the bullies win

For the most part, this is exactly why you might want to start a request for comment: to turn the community's attention to an instance of bullying, rather than be successfully intimidated.

O.K. I would like to do that. How do I start an RFC? What is the process? Point me in the right direction and I will. KarenAnn 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Need your advice on two issues then.

While this was going on, and User:RJHall was denying that what he had done was spam, I complained to MONGO who sent him a note referring him to Article 3 of WP:SPAM. At that point, RJHall did apologize. But I don't think he really agreed that he was wrong. He received messages from people saying they were sorry they didn't get a chance to vote after the nomination was closed early.

(However, I just looked at his talk page again, and his response to his last message indicates that maybe he does realize it got out of hand but doesn't know how to handle it in the future.}

My motivation would be to discuss the negative results that can so easily occur when internal spamming motivates a politically-based vote on nominations or polls that are meant to be sincere discussions -- more of a raising of awareness issue. I don't think the personal attacks would have happened under normal conditions.

Personal attacks are less disturbing to me than to have my nomination called a "rallying cry of the deletists", like I am part of an active conspiracy. That's rabble-rousing behavior. KarenAnn 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was wondering how much my name had to do with it and actually did look into the process of changing it to something inscrutable. KarenAnn 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what IRC is

But it was brought to my attention that my email address was accidently disabled -- fixed now. I know this is so public. KarenAnn 10:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "Radical Middle" logo

Hi Joe, I saw the edit history of the Radical Middle, and I noticed you removed the logo I designed. The logo was certainly an unofficial design. But you said you required a citation because it was somewhat "dubious". I thought the description in the image file would be a considered a "citation", and because of this I thought it would be safe to post.

Instead of posting this image again, what I did was I included a link further in the article and mentioned it was "Logo proposed" for the Radical Middle. All in all, it would be nice if others can see this logo in some capacity and either judge it for what it is, change it, and/or post a different version. There seems to be no official logo for the Radical Middle, even though there is a large presence on the web, news , and print. If you have any further suggestions or comments, it would be good to hear from you. Thanks. --3rdman 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, It was Nice Talking With You Too...

Forget I even mentioned anything OK? You're a real self-righteous BORE anyhow... Talk about someone getting on their soapbox and spouting-off.. Cut whatever you have to-- Or DELETE my account if it makes you feel important, OK Mr. Admistrator? All the pathetic Wikipedia rules and regulations for nerds the world over to enforce is an extremely dull experience already-- you'll be doing me a favour.

As far as your remark goes, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or advertising... it (the logo) has not been widely adopted, then it has no place in an encyclopedia"... Hmmmm... I could have swore I've seen hundreds upon HUNDREDS of articles and logos relating to all matter of alternative religious and political opinion(ex. from anarcho-syndicalism to satanism, to opus dei and capitalism)... I've seen other members make up logos, as I did, and post them in both Wikipedia or the WM Commons. I thought Wikipedia was precisely the place to post both new and/or recognized items for discussion and review.

You said, "I think its fine for use on your own user page, but I'm willing to guess that many people would question even that."... How would you know?! How many of the "many people" do you actually know?

--3rdman 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It gets onto the edge of the Vanity guidelines. Probably, if you stop trying to insert it into articles, people will leave you alone. And if you stop insulting administrators when they simply try to inform you of the rules and guidelines, probably people will give you far more slack than if you do your best to make them dislike you. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever ASSHOLE...

Fine I'll stop altogether... You won! You should be happy you smug piece of shit... Go rule over your crummy little world. Wikipedia is GROSSLY OVER-MODERATED! I don't know why Wikipedia allows user contributions AT ALL if they're constantly watching, editing and deleting user contributions. It kind of defeats the entire purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.28.191 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006.

Apparently the word "vanity" applies more than I thought. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to feed either of our egos. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Reply at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#.22Inaccessible_to_an_ordinary_reader.22 Fred Bauder 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Libyans enjoy regular trips to the many of the country's beaches

Is that correct or would it be "Most Libyans enjoy regular trips to the many of the country's beaches" ?

Great work!, thanks a lot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaw101ie (talk • contribs) 20 July, 2006.

The latter, of course. Sorry, did a lot of moving things around, probably reduced total verbiage by 10-15% without losing any substance, mucked this one up, I'll fix it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Illegitimi non carborundum

I would like to proceed with your suggestion if you will help me. KarenAnn 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First French Empire

Hey, thanks for letting me know about your concerns. I admit I reverted rather too casually, but that's because those two paragraphs were supposed to be part of the lead. I was a bit confused to see them placed in another section, but now it doesn't appear to be a problem.UberCryxic 17:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Papua/Irian

Hi, i added a comment to you question on the use of the word Irian, but it probably doesn't answer your questions directly - but maybe of interest to you. [5] Cheers. --Merbabu 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Romania

Hi, Jmabel. I recently added a lot of stuff to the article and reviewed some outdated info. The body of text has become quite large, and there are presumably a number of things to add. I think you added and reviewed the info about the Holocaust, or, in any case, are qualified to do it, so I wish to ask you something: could you help make it more succint? Not by much, and certainly not removal of valuable info - just condensing the text a bit so it is not redundant. I have added a "Main article: Romania during World War II", and, as it is, the text in the two articles is basically the same. Many thanks. Keep in touch. Dahn 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you please update the links for documents issued by the Wiesel Commission? The Holocaust Museum seems to have moved them or lost them. Dahn 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, we seem to go over the same ground with variations in History of the Jews in Romania, Romania during World War II, Ion Antonescu, and, for all I know, elsewhere. I think we should centralize the material to one article; the question is which. I'm not sure if Romania during World War II is the best place either; I hesitate to call it The Holocaust in Romania because there is more to the story than that (in particular, the remarkably high survival rate of Bucharest's Jews). Maybe Romania and the Jews during World War II? I'll bring the question to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've written to the Holocaust Museum; at worst, there may be no remaining online copy of the report, but since it is a published paper document, we can still readily cite it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Let me know when you reach an agreement over this, 'cause there will be a lot of links in a lot of articles that will need refreshing. Btw, a while back you raised the concern that Greier was plagiarizing stuff, didn't you? Perhaps you read what he and I last posted on the regional posting board, where I also made some discoveries on Greier's grotesque habitual use of English and the sheer clarity of large portions in those jingoistic articles of his. (Thanks for your support on the Criztu thing). Dahn 08:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not meaning to congratulate myself, but is "perfect" perchance in reference to my contributions in the article? Dahn 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to but that on your talk page w/ reference to turning up the Yad Vashem copy of the document. That's the problem with carrying on basically the same conversation in two places while doing other things. - Jmabel | Talk 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wait, I did put it in the right place & you copied it here. Jeez. - Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok... :). I just thought about something more relevant than my practical jokes: your proposal for renaming would not cover the Roma population during the Holocaust. Dahn 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough. So maybe "Holocaust" belongs in the title, and we're back to The Holocaust in Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess. Dahn 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thirteenth ring of the clock

You used this phrase in Talk:Negro. It seems very apt, but I hadn't heard it before. Is it some sort of Romanian proverb, or ???? Lou Sander 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's American or British. I've known this one since childhood; I think it's approximately late 19th century, though I couldn't say whose. - Jmabel | Talk 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

1907 Revolt

Sorry, it took me a while to notice that you had left another message on my page. I can't even begin to qualify the invalidity of the edit on that page. I know that victim estimates' vary, and I can't tell how right the ones there are - but when someone just ups end edits that Take Ionescu was "a Liberal" and the statue cannot be seen anymore, well... About the numbers: the quotation is valid as is, I guess, since the usual reproach I have heard in connection with them is that "the socialists and Jews and Russians were counting" and not, of course, "the objective Romanians that actually shot". Granted, the article will need some work in the future. Cheers. Dahn 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(Actually, the thing about Take was in the text.) Dahn 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba article

Hey Joe. I've been one of two people doing a fair bit of work on the Rudolf Vrba, and I've put it up for Featured Article status. You have a lot of experience writing articles, so I would appreciate your comments on how it could be improved etc. You'll find the nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Vrba. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Thanks, although it isn't much! Actually, you may be interested in seeing what exactly User 172 didn't like so much that he roll-backed two or three times without bothering keeping at least parts on Gentile & Arendt. I'm not going to add this content again in the time being, but if it seems reasonable to you, let me know. Cheers! Lapaz 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Duwamish

The Duwamish should be referred to as the Duwamish in the article, not as Dkhw'Duw'Absh, no?

Along with Princess Angeline, Lake John and his family on Lake Union in the 1880s are among the few late-19th century Dkhw'Duw'Absh individuals about whom a little is known.

Talk:Duwamish_(tribe)#Dkhw.27Duw.27Absh --Lukobe 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hate to keep dragging you into these things, but so many of these articles are so infrequently trafficked it's really hard to get other voices in there besides my own :) --Lukobe 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building

Many thanks with your translation help - the article recently received FA status - I've amended the inscription translation section in accordance with your suggestions. Kind regards, --Mcginnly | Natter 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gas Works Park

...on what basis do you say that Image:Gasworks.jpg is the work of the Federal government? You don't clearly cite where you got it from (which you should), but you say it was on seattle.gov, which is a city site, not a federal site. If it's city, it's probably copyrighted and we can't keep it. If it's federal, we need a clean indication of where it's from so we know it's OK. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tips. And feel free to delete the image; I obviously mistagged it. Fair Use is such a nebulous, if, at points, arbitrary debate outside a courtroom. I won't bother pursuing it here. Cheers, and thanks again. — Dishwasherrat 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin

Hi! Thanks for your proposal, I'll think a bit on it, but I guess it could be interesting, although a bit time-consuming!... Maybe it would be better to wait a bit however, as if I understood well there's a voting process, for which I won't be very available just now. Maybe in September would be better? Lapaz 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Knighthoods

In reply to your rather hostile message:

I was getting the information from List of people who have declined a British honour. If he has never rejected an honour, please remove him from the category and from the list. I just thought it would make sense to make it a category as well as a list, but I'm starting to wish i'd never started the stupid thing, to be honest! Ben davison 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that category entries are supposed to correspond to mentions within the articles themselves, but frankly I can't be bothered adding a sentence to every single one in the category! If the names are pulled from the category because there is no citation in the article then frankly I haven't got the energy to fight! And you're right, the names were taken from 'a confidential document' ie. the (leaked) document the committee sends to prospective recipients asking basically 'yes or no', I guess. The article should be cited, but, again, I can't be bothered searching for it tonight! Ben davison 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)