User talk:Jmabel/Archive 39

Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities‎

How about moving all the junk on to the talkpage instead of AfD? Just the same, I'm reverting the page to cleanup-date|June 2005. Someone else will run into it in a few days and PROD again. Best to let it go, or move unfinished work. I'll support, if you move to unfinished. meatclerk 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion, I move unfinished article section to talkpage done (in a second) meatclerk 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? For the record, my remark to Jesse was:

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "move unfinished work" or "move to unfinished". I haven't read through the article lately. I was in discussion with someone on the talk page, glanced at the article, and noticed the proposal to delete it. Again, from when I've looked at it before, the thing's been a mess, but it's a valid topic, and clearly from the talk page there is someone talking about working on it seriously, so deletion would be out of line. If you feel that things in the article are "junk" and should be moved to talk, then please feel free to do so, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify both: Jmabel says, If you feel that things in the article are "junk" and should be moved to talk, then please feel free to do so, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Hence, moved "junk" to talk. Thanks.. I take it you had no objection to move. Others might. That's it. Thanks. meatclerk 07:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You won't believe this, but...

Could you care to comment here? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 20:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop Punk Revival Merge Discussion

Saw you on the Punk WikiProject list... Your input is valued! - Sir, please check out whats going on there Talk:Pop_punk_revival and add you opinion to the "Merge Discussion" Xsxex 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Forged e-mail?

Hi, I don't know what your actual part in this whole fiasco is, but I know that your name is being thrown around a bit, so I figured I would try to clear my name with you.

As you well know, I have been accused of forging an image of an offensive e-mail from Dpotop. The "proof" against me is, so far: 1) That forgery was possible; 2) An alleged copy of an e-mail from the Yahoo! Abuse Team saying that Dpotop's account was not compromised.

Now, I do know (and very well) that it's quite easy to send e-mails making them appear to come from a certain sender, and it's even easier to forge images, but from what I imagine, it's difficult to forge the full headers of an e-mail (I can't make heads or tails of them myself).

As requested by several subscribers to Wikipedia-l, I posted the original text of the e-mail including full headers: [1]. The fact that nobody responded shows, I think, that the e-mail was not forged; if it had been, one of the people requesting the full headers would've called foul. --Node 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction is, if you didn't forge it, then someone else did, because it seems pretty out of character for him to send something like that.

Obvious first question: is "Jacky PB" <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> his actual Yahoo account? Or is that unknown? - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is. It's the address that appeared on the "to" line of the e-mail he accused me of sending to him. --Node 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Next question: at this point, do you believe that he is the actual author of the e-mail? - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel,

I wanted to write you on this matter, but saw Node_ue already did it. So, I already saw you consider forgery a very serious offence. I agree, and this is why I refrained from editing wikipedia while waiting for a diagnostic from Yahoo customer care. Moreover, if wikipedia will not ban this guy for the false info he gave, I don't see the interest in editing here. Of course, there is still a chance someone pirated yahoo.com, or obtained Node_ue's password for his node.ue@gmail.com account, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I still have an investigation launched, and should have another diagnostic, but customer services seem slow (it took me one month to get a clear reply from yahoo.com).

My question: if certified true, do you think that the info I posted is enough to have Node_ue banned for good? If the answer is yes, then I will need a trustee to look into my yahoo.com account to make a copy of some messages, so that they can be certified. Would you be willing to do it? I tried to get Ronline involved, but he did not answer. If there are two or more trustees, it's better, but I need to know them. And I presume it would be better if it's an admin. Maybe you can convince Ronline to get involved, because he's known and respected in the wikipedia hierarchy.

Just a note: dpotop1@yahoo.com is indeed my e-mail address.

Yours, Dpotop 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm willing to play the trustee role if necessary. I find the whole thing rather perplexing. From what I've seen of your work, it would be quite out of character for you to send such a message; I find it marginally (but only marginally) more likely that Node forged it. My strongest suspicion is some third party is sitting back laughing a the trouble he's caused, though I can't say I know the particular mechanism he might have used. - Jmabel | Talk 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

sorin cerin

We talk about another american-romanian writer and philosopher,Sorin Cerin.Please see the page.Somebody want to delete.Why?Envy?See ,Sorin Cerin and neo-ontology.Marylin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.104.189.107 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2006.

Given the above objection, I removed the prod and listed the article for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Loisaida

Thanks for asking for my help in the Loisaida, issue. It is interesting how the addition of an accent over a letter could change the pronunciation of a word. Had there been an accent on the second "i", making it a "long" i, then Loisaida would have been pronunced as you stated. If I can ever be of any help in the future, please do not hesitate to get in tyouch with me. Take care. Tony the Marine 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Skhariya the Jew

Dunno, I just was editing the article on Ghisolfi and I found that reference to "Skhariya the Jew"... didn't want someone to link it to the sect article and cause confusion. I think the note is worthwhile. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

After further reflection... noting that "Skhariya" is the Russian equivalent of "Zachariah" doesn't seem to me to have much relevance to the fact that two different individuals are referred to specifically as "Skhariya the Jew" in official Russian government documents. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unification of German

You to me: The material exists: it's in German Empire. It would mostly be a matter of refactoring. Any interest in taking it on? It would probably start with proposing this on Talk:German Empire, making sure that you get something like agreement on how much should remain at German Empire, etc.

Me: Nive meeting you, and thanks for the information. --Bhadani 11:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Domnule sau doamna Jmabel

Va scriem din partea unui grup de intelectuali romani din America de Nord si Europa care va multumesc.Am urmarit cu frenezie fenomenul Cerin .Era cat pe ce sa-i fie stearsa pagina din enciclopedia engleza daca nu a-ti fi intervenit dumneavoastra.Motivele invocate erau pe cat de puerile pe atat de banale.Numar de carti vandute ,etc.Mai trist este ca tocmai un roman a sarit sa afirme ca despre Cerin nu se afla in enciclopedia romaneasca decat episodul Australia.Daca noi ne batem joc in fata strainilor mintind numai de rau despre valorile noastre cine sa le apere,tot strainii?Mai ales ca un filozof nu este mare prin numarul de carti vandute cu toate ca Cerin a vandut destule in anii trecuti avand alte sales rankuri pe Amazon,[www.sorincerindestiny.go.ro]ci prin propria sa teorie unde introduce termenul de neo-ontologie.Putem fi contactati prin comunitatea romana din Sacramento California.R.Vidu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.104.189.107 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.

I'll do my best to translate the above. If I get anything wrong, someone can feel free to correct me. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempted translation:

Mr. or Madame Jmabel
We write you on the part of a group of Romanian intelectuals in North America who thank you. We have finished with the wild phenomenon Cerin. The page in the English encyclopedia would have been stearsa [sorry, don't know this word & cannot find it in the dictionary, I presume "erased"] if you had not intervened. The motives invoked were the most puerile and banal as well. The number of books sold , etc. The saddest is that a Romanian in particular has leapt to affirm that there is nothing about Cerin in the Romanian Encyclopedia other that the Australian episode. If we mock ourselves in front of foreigners meaning only bad about our values, are foreigners yet again to defend them? Besides that a philosopher is not big through the number of books he has sold, with all that Cerin has sold just in the last year having a high sales rank on Amazon, [www.sorincerindestiny.go.ro] but through his own his own theory where he introduces the term neo-ontology. We can be contacted through the Romanian community in Sacramento, California. R.Vidu

End translation.

I'd appreciate if any further discussion of this continue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorin Cerin. It seems to me that this link is pretty definitive against him. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Karen Ann/Matisse

Hi. Karen Ann (now Matisse) has got herself into a bit of a pickle concerning her creation of sockpuppets. She has made some rather naive options during afd decisions which have gone wrong. She was blocked and has has taken it to heart - announcing that her time on the encyclopedia is up. Having worked with her during a difficult period on another page I can confirm that her attitude towards the encyclopedia is sound and her responses to admins following her block are genuine - after one response she was asked by an admin whether she was "just being annoying" and referred to as an "attention seeker" by another. I'm dissappointed by this whole affair.

From what I know, KarenAnn has naively attempted to seek anonymity from what she believed to be harrassment and comments targeted at her, and has fallen foul of a culture on this site which actively works against users unused to the modes of behaviour of the "internet forum". Considering KarenAnn's dilligent work on the encyclopedia - this is a loss - and a particular loss to me because she had helped me out on a number of occasions with referencing and so on. It should be noted that one of users who targetted Karen Ann over a period retains an unblemished block log - despite an rfc and repeated work by myself to end the incivility. This user will continue to edit here, KarenAnn has been chased away. This is a great shame.

Having read your comments about a possible culture of bullying here, I wonder if you could add to the comments on her page (User talk:Mattisse)? Thanks.--Zleitzen 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hells Angels

See my replyRsm99833 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporal and spiritual power

Thanks for the suggestion. I think that would be a more accurate statement. --chemica 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

nyng

Yanyuwa. It represents a front velar nasal. --Ptcamn 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

TNX-Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Marrano"

Hello Jmabel:

• On point 2, only people who come from Hispanic countries can tell you this [that "marrano" is only refered to a pig], and not books. Ask any Spanish speaking person what the word "marrano" means to them, and then ask them if to them it means Jew. Then, you will appreciate my point.
• On point 4, please read La Divina Providencia (17th c.) by David Nieto, and Shebet Yehudah (16th c.) by Salomon ibn Verga, both Sefaradi works that speak of Anusim, or forced Jews living as Catholics, and you will see that these authors do not refer to them as "Marranos". Both were important rabbis.
• The question one must ask on point five, why would a Jew would call another fellow Jew a "Pig". It does not make sense. Most Jews using it today do not even know what it means, but those who began using it knew what it meant. If that is the case, if people beging to consider Jews "assholes", is it OK for everyone to refer them as "assholes" both in writing and in speech?

--Dramirezg 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Helpful intervention

Thanks for your edit on the List of Czech Jews. It was promptly reverted but I reinstated it. I am at a complete loss why Czech Jews are treated differently from any other country; as I have noted on the talk page, someone (probably the same editor) has a different attitude to the List of Ukrainian Jews. I suspect that the person involved is Czech and wants to downplay the evidence of Jewish influence there; if so, I am glad to see that you oppose chauvinism.--Brownlee 10:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Strangely enough, since I have edited that page before, I honestly didn't make that edit. Besides, it's kinda WP:POINTish. For one thing I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is much harder to find sources calling people "Ukrainian" insteead of "Russian" because Ukrainian is a very new sort of designation. Unlike Czech, the West was somewhat ignorant of the status of a Ukrainian ethnos under Soviet rule, so we're going to be very "hard-pressed" to find a lot of sources calling people "Ukrainian Jews" pre-1950ish. Nonetheless, they exist. If you want, that would be a good list to source up since its manageable. Then again I could just be a Chauvinistic editor from the Czech Republic who wants to downplay Jewish influence there because I'm so anti-semitic. *rolls eyes* WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF 72.144.183.169 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The designation "Ukrainian Jews" is very tricky, and certainly any such list requires an explanatory note similar to the one I added to the List of Czech Jews. There are a few reasons for this:

1. Simply defining the area to be designated historically as "Ukraine" is rather tricky. Do we apply the current borders retroactively, or take the borders of the time?
2. Jews are inherently not Slavs (except in the case of mixed marriages, which were rare until modern times), and rather few had Ukrainian as a mother tongue, so we cannot elide the previous question as easily as we could in a list of Ukrainians as such.
3. To the best of my knowledge (which, for this matter, is focused on the late 19th century, the period in which my ancestors emigrated from Lithuania to the U.S.) very few Jews identified as "Ukrainian Jews". They identified as "Russian Jews" or "Polish Jews" even if they were from places we would now consider incontestibly Ukrainian. Typically, they had Yiddish as a first language and either Russian or Polish as a second (or even a third behind German).

To interject with more support for what you're saying. The vast majority of immigrants from the Ukraine during the same time called themselves "Russian" too. It's really a sort of re-emerging ethnic affliation, Ukrainian, that is. 72.144.183.250 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So, again, in order to make such list are useful and NPOV it must have an opening section clarifying what it is a list of. And it seems to me that most entries in a list of Ukrainian Jews (and many entries in a list of Czech Jews) will require some kind of qualifying note about the sense in which the person is considered Ukrainian/Czech (and, in the latter case, often the sense in which the person is considered Jewish, since the Czech Jews were less endogamous). - Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To Jmabel's point about Jews identifying as Russian or Polish, not Ukrainian Jews, I think the statement can be extended past the late 19th century all the way through the Russian Revolution, if my family's experience is typical...they came from Shpola and always self-identified as Russian, not Ukrainian Jews. (And Russian--not Ukrainian--was the second language behind Yiddish, as Jmabel said.) --Lukobe 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well for one thing the Ukrainian ethnos and language is really novice (though Ukrainian was supposedly the historical language in the Middle Ages). Back in the 19th century a whole lot of the territory of Ukraine was inhabited by Russians and Poles, and probably a huge amount spoke Russian and Polish, not Ukrainian. So, in turn, most of the Jews there spoke Russian and Polish as well. To be honest, I don't think the List of Ukrainian Jews is even necessary. I'm sure with enough research we can see whether or not the Jews in that list were really "Russian" (by language affliation or personal affliation) or Polish (by the same manner). I dunno. It's a complicated issue. Given Jewish genetics and such, its really undoubtable that there were mixed marriages in the past and so it is possible that given a geographic separation, distinct Jewish subgroups (Polish-Jews, Russian-Jews) would emerge (Rabbinical law says that someone is Jewish only if they have a Jewish mother right? So its very possible that the male lineage was the one most diluted. I read somewhere about studies of the Y-chromosome. Offtopic. It was interesting to say the least :) ). The question is whether that mixed marriage had any input into the language spoken and ethnicity affliated with, and since there's absolutely no way of knowing, we have a problem. The safest approach is just finding out what the people themselves said, or what biographies said about them. So to sum up, I agree. 72.144.183.250 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabbinic law says that someone is Jewish only if they have a Jewish mother or they convert, but it's still more complicated than that, because much contemporary usage does not strictly follow rabbinic law. See Who is a Jew?. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The real issue with Ukrainian Jews, I think, is, say, Jews from Lviv and other parts of Eastern Galicia. This area only became joined to Russia/the Soviet Union in 1945, and usage of "Ukrainian Jew" before then seems silly. "Galician Jew," or "Polish Jew" would be more appropriate. We should always try to take into account the political borders and self-definitions that people would have had at the time, not what we would call them now. I've responded, btw, to your comments over at the Czech Jews talk page. Basically, I think that either the focus should be limited to Jews who have lived in Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic since 1918, or else that it should be moved to List of Czech and Bohemian Jews, or something along those lines, with a preference for the latter (especially since someone like Kafka straddles the dividing line). I find the criteria of people like Mad Jack as maddening as you do, I think. I don't understand why people want to edit an article when they neither know nor care a whit about the actual subject matter, and simply intend to repeatedly whip out their oversimplified understanding of wikipedia policy as though this solves the problem. john k 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I agree on Galician and Polish. Same problem comes up at the other end of the country with Odessa: it was part of Russia, not the Ukraine until some point in the Communist era, 1920 I think. Jacob Adler just might have spoken Ukrainian (he was fluent in at least half a dozen languages) but he would certainly have characterized himself as a Russian Jew. - Jmabel | Talk 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi JMabel, what exactly are your grievances on List of Czech Jews. What do you disagree with or agree with? If there are any problems, we can address them. 72.144.158.14 02:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've stated my issues clearly on the relevant talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well JMabel, I'm asking you very nicely to summarize your grievances for me because its really hard to distinguish your position from the very big and didactic messages you posted. So please, once more and briefly, lets not be cold about it. Oh, and equally if you have any suggestions for List of Ukrainian Jews standards. 72.153.53.100 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My issue is that any list needs to state its criteria clearly, and that items that are on the borderline of inclusion should be mentioned with clarifying notes either in the main body of the text or in footnotes. See List of Spanish monarchs for a good example of doing this in the main body in a rather tricky case.

By the way, if you would take an account name, I could reply on your user talk page or at least ping it to let you know I've replied. When you are editing from a series of different IP addresses, I have no way to do that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a usertalk page I usually refer people to User talk:The Jujugoe but haven't got any replies there yet. My dynamic IP and a cookies issue prevents me from being logged in, and so even if I sign on the username it still posts using the IP. I usually prefer the IP anyway that way I can keep track of my contributions one section at a time. But thanks a lot for the response. I agree that on specific lists like List of Spanish monarchs there should be clarified criteria. The List of Ukrainian Jews is going to be a hard issue because almost no where does a person refer to themselves as "Ukrainian" until the 20th century. We either don't need the list at all or we can combine it with Russia and make a List of Jews born in Soviet lands or something like that, because that way there's little confusion over who's Ukrainian, Belarusian, or Russian when they're Jewish. Whatever you think is better really. Or we can just leave that list the way it is. 72.153.53.100 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

National Theatre Bucharest

Thank you very much for the translation, Jmabel. Laurapr\ ^mesaj 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

LoveToKnow 1911

Hi, I just left a message for you in the LoveToKnow 1911 environment.

The Lilliputian

Answered there - Jmabel | Talk 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)