User talk:Jmabel/Archive 50

Messianics again

Hi Joe: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [1] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this.
• User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)

ETA

I'm currently (sort of) mediating at ETA, but Mountolive who first asked for mediation has been a bit scarce, and I've been very busy. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fascism articles

Spylab is aggressively rewriting a number of the fascism entries, and seems unwilling to make small sets of edits in favor of massive multiple rewrites in a short span of time. I have been unable to get Spylab to engage in any meaningful discussion. The meat clever approach sometimes cleans up an article, but often at the expense of nuance and important details. I very much would appreciate any comments or thoughts here and here. --Cberlet 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And here--Cberlet 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have clearly explained all of my edits in edit notes and talk pages. User:Cberlet has not addressed the nature of my edits, and only opposes them because in some cases, I have done many edits in one day (which is not against Wikipedia policy). I have not "rewritten" those articles; I have mostly done housekeeping edits such as correcting the formatting and organizing similar topics together. Cberlet has not discussed my specific edits in a meaningful way, and has made some personal attacks. The revert war in neo-Nazism is with User:NovaNova, who continuously reverts one section so that it focusses on subjects that are not about neo-Nazism, and so it has poor formatting. I made a comprimise and combined the two different versions of the section. Instead of making productive edits to the section, NovaNova merely keeps reverting the section and adds strangely-worded edit notes and makes false accusations of "vandalism" and "lying". NovaNova also has a long history of using sock puppets and anonymous IPs to edit that article. I have tried to get the article protected from NovaNova, and have reported NovaNova's disruptive editing and discussion behaviour to an administrator. If you have any questions, please leave comments on my talk page and I will give you more information. Spylab 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never crossed paths with NovaNova and haven't yet looked at the article in question, so I have no comeent there.

Spylab, Neo-fascism and religion, the only one of these I've really looked at, sure looked like a rewrite to me. But I'll admit that I didn't go one by one through your many, apparently well-summarized, edits, nor have I been through the talk page. From the skimming I did, I suspect that you did a fairly good job, but when articles are thrown in the blender like this, there is always a need for people to revisit afterward. Usually, when I do something like this (and I do), I try to then get out of the article for a week or so, so that it again becomes more of a collaborative effort rather than my personal work. Of course, some of what happens is usually crap, but much of it is improvement, and you (or someone else) can always come back later & clean up the crap. All of these articles have a few good contributors, so something like that might be a reasonable approach.

I'm really busy (both on Wikipedia and in real life) the next 2-1/2 weeks, so I'm not plunging into any of this myself. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerre Noe

Hi there, I just wanted to say thank you for writing the article about Jerre Noe, which I just came across. As one of his grandchildren, I had thought of creating an article about him when he died last fall, but I felt that it might have been inappropriate to do so myself. I'm really glad to see someone else thinking about him. Thanks, and take care, romarin [talk ] 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably

It is probable that he felt insulted, but I frankly could find no way to communicate with that person other than sarcasm (I still don't believe that the words I have said could be in themselves taken for insults). He presumed no good faith, did not check why the fragment of text was originally like that, and could not understand enough English to see my point. I had incidentally had a look at the ro article's talk page, where the most unimaginable arguments are still being debated. A user there, who uses a Dacian name as well and has filled up the entire ro wiki with ultra-nationalist POV of a greenish hue, and who has remained virtually unchallenged there, argues on that page in favor of mentioning how "the Jews took revenge through communist activity", and how "Woodrow Wilson had a protochronist (!) plan to colonize Europe with Jews" - all cherished points made by this user on said page (also note that the "template" applied to the page was "PDVN", Romanian for NPOV). He may still be a newby, but I doubt it.

What he did was trolling. I tried to answer him and explain my point, but he refused to even consider that he was reading what he wanted into it. When he finally understood what I had told him, it was my fault for telling him to read what I had intended to be an ambiguous text, because I am a con artist who disseminates propaganda and is paid for it. Dahn 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree. But when you make a remark that could easily be read as an insult (not that I never do this myself) it makes it impossible for me as an admin to sanction him unless I want to sanction you both. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Political parties

You never did answer my points about referencing on the List of political parties in Romania. I see no reason why we should over-reference that page, especially with citations for the major parties - btw, the PNŢ was founded on October 10, 1926, and that info is likely to feature prominently in an expanded article (I don't know why it should be on the list at all). If you want, I can add inline citations to the Peasants' Party (Romania) article (sometime in the future), where this info is present, but why would I reference the list with intimate details? Dahn 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, the PNŢ - PNŢCD merge tags are now two and a half months old. Is any final resolution in sight? Biruitorul 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a megber, per the PNL example, and considering the fact that we would have to reshape countless articles. We could create separate sections, but we should have all of that on one page, IMO. (Continuity, at least from the party's point of view, was also ensured - not just by claiming it, but based on the clandestine activities of Corneliu Coposu in Communist Romania). Dahn 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK with me either way.

I too back a merger. The question is: who'll do it and when? Biruitorul 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. No, I don't have a problem if you want to do the referencing mainly in the various party articles when they exist (although in this case there was no reference there either). - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, editing that article would take a lot of effort, and I tend to things like this in one go or thereabouts. (But I have left some referenced detail in other articles, in case someone wants to expand the text before I do.)

Does Scurtu have stuff to say about the minor parties, especially those not yet referenced? Dahn 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably. As you may know, I'm still quite busy with a paid job until 22 December, then I plan to take some time not working, and while I am going to do some (probably North American) travel, I should be giving Wikipedia more time on average for a month or two. Reading a book in Romanian is a slow process for me, and I've really only skimmed the Scurtu book, not read it through. It is one of several possible sources I have (another is in French). I have to confess, though, this (Romanian parties) may not be my top priority even when I do focus more on it.

From the precision of his answers at times, I suspect that Biruitorul may have better sources than I, and also is clearly better qualified to handle Romanian-language sources. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. What we could really use is the Alexandrescu-Bulei-Mamina volume referenced on Mihai Stelescu. All I have is a fragment of it (which I used to reference the fact that Ion Gheorghe Maurer had the nerve to present himself as an agrarian politician in the 1930s), but I could tell that the book is written like a dictionary, which should make it easy to read and cite. (Initially, I thought that the Scurtu one was pretty much the same, that is why I had asked.) Dahn 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the Scurtu book I have is pretty much a narrative history. I know he's a prolific writer, and it wouldn't surprise me if he wrote something more like a reference book, but this isn't it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Dahn 17:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

expressionist architecture

Hey Joe, I was wondering if you would take a look at expressionist architecture and the talkpage for that article. Mcginnly and I have both been working on that article and are asking for other opinions about what to do. Regards, DVD+ R/W 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

admin needed on Transnistria

Hello Jmabel. One or more administrators are needed on the Transnistria page, and I thought you might just understand te context. My oppinion is simple: there are two guys who try to spin information by all means. To give you an idea, I believe that even Node_ue on the Moldova page was more reasonable one year ago. But, of course, I'm not an administrator. Dpotop 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An RfC has no meaning or credibility if no outside observer is following the conflict. I feel that some admin needs to keep an eye on what happens on that page. I'm not talking about POV issues. I feel we're still at more basic issues, such as citation practices. Just taking a look once a day for some minutes and giving an oppinion on basic wikipedia policies would already help. Dpotop 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Jmabel, as I told you previously, for the Transnistria page admins are needed on a daily basis. So, if you could take a look there and try to explain ho editing should be done, it would be good. BTW: one of the problem editors (Mark Street) apparently left. Dpotop 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That bad, huh? I'll try to look in now & then, but probably not much until I get caught up on my backlog. I hope you tried also informing some of the other half dozen admins I recommended. - Jmabel | Talk 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

delete this, delete that, yadda yadda

Lotsa people wanting to delete everything in sight on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Was the moon full recently? --Ling.Nut 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceauşescu family

Hello. I wonder if you could give your opinion on the tag Anonimu placed there. The entire article (save a couple of minor details) is based on the linked piece, which comes from a respectable newspaper that we use in many Romania-related articles. However, he claims that it is not objective and has an "obvious ironic anti-ceausescu tone". Leaving aside the contention that there's nothing wrong with that, I wonder what more, if anything, I should do to assuage his concerns. I might also add that none of this stuff is exactly earth-shattering news - the family was not known for its refinement.

To help you out, let me translate a couple of phrases from the original: beţiile lui Andruţă - "Andruţă's drunken bouts"; Andruţă îşi bătea deseori nevasta şi copiii - "Andruţă frequently beat his wife and children"; dătorită poziţiei rudelor sale "due to her relatives' position". Biruitorul 19:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin recreated

Hi. I've nominated for deletion, but it sends me to the old discussion page - I don't know if this is what it should do, but I know that the person who created it again (Mr. Cerin himself, I presume), is in breach of wiki rules. Is speedy deletion the way to go, given that consensus was already reached? I would advise Mr. Cerin to find ways of promoting himself other than wikipedia and sending letters to the staff of Timpul liber (I happened to be reading the "Letters to the editor" when I had nothing else to do, and a propaganda message of the same original quality popped up on the page). Dahn 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, it looks like all users who have contributed to the article (except BigHaz and yours trully) are sockpuppets of the same man with the same original grammar (I think it is lame how they all focus on just one article and write each other in that particular way). Dahn 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedied as recreation of deleted article. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November) to confirm that deletion was upheld. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

Sorin Cerin is a notability.Why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

We don't understand why?

Why you delete Sorin Cerin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorin Cerin Conclusion from December 3

Was "Deletion endorsed among established editors" the article was re-created much better.In 'Timpul Liber' nobody talk about American Wikipedia ,but Romanian Wikipedia!Again Mr.J.Mabel we re-create a new site about Sorin Cerin until we don't see " not re-create!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Er... "we"? Dahn 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes!Again Sorin Cerin is not a garbage.WE wish to keep him.

Deletion endorsed among established editors! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Smithsonian Folkways

At this point, Wikipedia has at least THREE articles on the same subject: Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, Folkways Records, and the brand-new Smithsonian folkways records. As an aside, PLEASE check variant names and spellings (including capitalization) before creating new articles.

That said, there can be only one article, with the other titles redirecting to that page. Please go to Talk:Smithsonian Folkways Recordings for the discussion on what to keep, merge, or expunge. Note that Smithsonian Folkways Recordings appears to have an iffy copyright status. --Calton | Talk 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel a bit inclined to reply "PLEASE check article histories before lecturing the wrong person."

It's a group message to all recent editors: PLEASE check my contribution history/ related user talk pages before launching into lectures yourself.

I presume that you are not telling me to check variant names and spellings before each time I edit an article.

No, I 'm advising you as a recent editor, who presumably has an interest in the articles, the exact nature of which I cannot discern as I lack mind-reading skills. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...couldn't you have made your remarks on the article talk page?

There are THREE different talk pages now: which is the one that you are suggesting everyone interested has watchlisted? One message to everyone, pointing to one talk page, targeted to those who've shown an interest: this is a problem? --Calton | Talk 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Golden Space Needle

Hi, Jmabel. I know I had suggested all winners to be in the SIFF page, but looking at how other awards are organized, I think Akcraver (who has created the Golden Space Needle article) does have a point (see my talk for the other half of the thread). Could we move the table of winners over to GSN award? It is done so in other awards. Also, since the table is very condenced, we could split it to several tables. If you agree I could contribute in doing it. Hoverfish 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be easy to find and all winners in one page. Thanks for your prompt answer. Hoverfish 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: best of luck

Thanks. -- llywrch 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blackface vandalism

Sorry about that - I just saw some vandalism & got rid of it in a hurry. Thanks for pointing my mistake out on my talk page. The Doctor 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

small option for template

The option of making templates small seems to be gaining popularity. I put the option in the template {{Ethnic groups}}. If the small=yes option is not set, nothing changes. If it is set, then you get what you can see on Talk:Popora people.

If we adopt this option, we may need to reduce the verbiage on the template.

let me know what you think. --Ling.Nut 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As per your comments, I played with some of the text on the template. See Talk:Popora people for display options. Please note that these word changes are for test/display purposes only, and can be reverted if you don't agree with them. :-) Not all of the template's text has been changed; only that text which currently appears on Talk:Popora people. Note also that the word changes appear on the small version, but nothing is changed on the large version except that I removed the word "priority" from "WikiProject Ethnic groups [priority] open tasks"

--Ling.Nut 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) OK :-) Many of the text options still have not been changed. I'll try to get to them when I can. At the moment, since no talk pages are using the "small" option, the unfinished state of the changes isn't hurting anything. I'll let you know when I'm done. --Ling.Nut 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Danse Macabre

Hi! You changed my translation twice to kingdom, which is wrong. You probably confuse it with Rîche. Instead Reyen is a variant of Middle High German reien or reyge and corresponds to modern High German Reigen, which means "round dance", so Death commands the mortals to join him in a round dance. That's why the dance is macabre. See Grimm's Dictionary [[2]] Teodorico 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. For once, I'm caught out on confusing languages (actually, I was presuming the Latin root found in the English "reign"). This article is often edited by the truly clueless and/or vandalistic, and I've had a tendency to run through it reverting a lot of miscellaneous screw-ups, but in this case I appear to be the screw-up. My apologies. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Polyglot

Hi Joe, I was just putting my name into the Wikipedian Languages page and noticed that we coincide on several languages-- I'm fluent in Spanish, advanced in Catalan, and learning Italian. The one that made me write to you was the Catalan. Did yoyu live in Catalunya? My wife is Catalana, that's why I speak what I do (other than just being a language geek). Anyway, glad to meet you. Timothy Chen Allen 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My Catalan is pretty weak. I've been to Barcelona at least half a dozen times, though, once for as long as a month, got a decent Catalan-English dictionary and some grammar books, did my best to pick up Avui now and then instead of El País or Vanguardia, and at least got to where I'm usually OK with museum wall texts and restaurant menus. That level has proven enough to do some fairly decent translations here. But note that I only claim "ca-1", and in this case I can't even say I'm being cautious (as I am with my "de-1" and "ro-2").

Anyway, glad to have you aboard. I'm sure you've noticed that there is a lot of translation work to do. You might want to join WP:SPATRA, and maybe help out on our current difficult task, Threshing-board/Translation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ping

Greetings, Joe. Sorry for the delay. The discussion your inquiered about took place here. All the best, El_C 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Partition of India

Two editors trying to insert publication from Hindutvadi small press, Voice of India, in list of references. They claim that it's notable. Would appreciate your comments. Zora 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Its on google books. I think zora should stop misrepresenting other editors. I myself made a small google search and found it cited in Academic Peer-Reviewed Journals ( see The Punjab Boundary Force and the Problem of Order, August 1947 - Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1974), pp. 491-520), Mainstream newspapers (Rediff), and quite a few college history department suggested reading lists.Bakaman 02:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made my relevant remarks on the relevant talk page. Please don't carry on your argument on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin opinion needed

Hi Joe: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think got it covered, Joe. Best, El_C 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Hi. I need your input on a problem that has escalated. Yesterday, User:Vintila Barbu made, all in one go, this contribution to the Piteşti prison article I had just created.

The large addition was written in impecable English. I don't mean to insult the user in any way, but this, this, and this is proof of his usual English. There are other clues in the added text to point out that the text was authored by somebody else (such as tone and distance taken from the events described).

Vintila Barbu has admitted to have done this before, when I pinpointed the source he had copied from (see my request and his answer).

Not only do I consider plagiarism absurd (it does nobody any favor, it is easy to paraphrase, and one is informed about it every single time one opens an editing window), but I find there is no excuse for it. I received this warning, and much of the suspect text was restored to before a version I had taken the trouble to paraphrase.

To this is added the fact that the large new addition of text is a decrease in quality on one level - it does not feature enough inline citations, and I find it hard to source those exact claims (and, in any case, it should not be my job, but that of their original contributor).

Please look into this. Dahn 14:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't know. It's not that blatant. I've seconded and expanded upon your remarks on his talk page. If there is not a sufficient response, I guess I'll have to start an RFC. May I assume that you would join me in that? - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay and thanks. I'll endorse the summary, but will like to add the SLOMR incident as further evidence for evaluation (we could perhaps ask someone not involved to translate it). Where in an RFC is this supposed to be done? Dahn 02:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a well-established way to do this. My best suggestion is to be explicit about adding material (that is, date & sign the additions, much as you would on a talk page, in the relevant sections). Since the certified basis for the dispute is basically just a statement of concern and a need to air the matter, I don't think that will create any confusion. - Jmabel | Talk 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I had meant to ask you if I could mention the incident in the same RFC, and where I could do it. It was one of the contributing factors in raising my suspicions (I had basically bumped into texts that Vintila Barbu had copied, and he has admitted to have "adopted word by word"). I have referred you to the diffs in the first message on this topic - I think that they form a proper addition to the discussion. Dahn 11:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, I misread something in your message before giving the above answer) Basically, I just add to my signature then? Dahn 11:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What about restoring common sense ?

Well, Joe, there could be thousand reasons why someone doesn’t always produce texts of exactly the same quality. BTW, I briefly revisited my texts and frankly I cannot ascertain significant qualitative discrepancies (it’s true, the two biographies are quite simple a prose, probably I subreptitiously find biographies-writing boring). Now, to accuse someone of plagiarism on the ground of flimsy stylistic variations in his writing is somehow risky, don’t you think ?!

OK, I’m trying to take this absurd-amusing situation seriously and answer your question: “how come you sometimes write absolutely flawless English and then at other times, while certainly fluent, you are clearly non-native”. I never thought about it… If I look back at my relationship to your language, I see that this very year I could celebrate 30 years since I publish research in English, in the last 15 years in ISI-ranked journals. There is hence no wonder that I write considerably better than I speak (having never lived more than a few month in an English speaking area). Thus, I’m better off with more complex texts than with simple or colloquial ones.

This could be a plausible explanation. Maybe some times I am simply in a better shape than other times…

Don’t you at all feel this situation as a little absurd, Joe ? Asking a person why he isn’t invariable ?!

Actually, I don’t even feel offended by this accusation. Just a little amused and somehow…tired. Mach’s gut, --Vintila Barbu 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The only absurdity I see here is that up until now I was inclined to trust you, and expected a believeable explanation, but your "defense" has convinced me otherwise. After reading this, I find it very hard to believe that you wrote the flawless passage that raised an issue for Dahn. I will be opening an RFC. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should I defend myself Joe ? For having written a "flawless" text ?! Is this not absurd to you ? With "restoring common sense" I mean remembering basic norms of civilisation like the right use of "burden of proof".

Of course I didn't plagiate one single sentence, but why should I defend my self, for God's sake ?

I really cannot understand how you don't perceive the absurdity of this situation: without any trace of a proof, I am a victim of calumny and accused of plagiarism, and it's me who has to defend myself. Besides, I am quite intrigued by your reaction, I don't understand why are you reacting so aggresively. It wasn't my intention to offend anybody. I am the victim here. Please accept my message of peace and calme,--Vintila Barbu 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PS what's this, RFC ?

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintila Barbu. I have informed Dahn and Vintila. I hope this turns out to be just a misunderstanding, but I think it needs to be aired. - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"To Do" list

Jmabel,

I'm finally done with all my papers and tests. :-) :-)

I had sorta planned to go through various lists and add many more article to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. If you have other thoughts/ideas of "what to do" to improve the project, maybe you can put your thoughts on the project's talk page. I haven't been watching that page for the past few days, but will resume doing so. --Ling.Nut 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'd most like to see happen is to get assessments done so that we can get rid of the apparatus from the old way of listing articles. Adding the assessment template to more talk pages is also, of course, welcome.

I'll be on this myself, also, probably about the end of the calendar year. I'm planning to put 20-30 hours into it, but I don't have that kind of time on my hands the next few weeks. I'm about 4 days behind on my watchlist right now, and seem to have just gotten sucked into an RFC as well. - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might putter around with adding more articles to the project from time to time, but won't give it the intense concentration that I had envisioned. Will try to spend time assessing current members instead. Later --Ling.Nut 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou

Hi Joe: Latest chutzpah at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAN

Can you please provide your opinion about this? I agreed with Greier on a certain issue, now Greier is banned and some users are claiming that is against Wikipedia policy to keep my opinion.--MariusM 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SORIN CERIN IS BACK!

The article with Sorin Cerin is back after Deletion review with :"Speedy deletion overturned,AfD optional",because the admin Mgm said :"The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel)asserts notability by national news coverage ,which the originally deleted version didn't.All the peoples vote per Mgm.Now you are free to redelete the article or keep.Mircia 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian rabbis

What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion

Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis

Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this entire discussion is taking place on my talk page. And I (who am also a Jew, but not particularly a Zionist - nor particularly an anti-Zionist) don't necessarily agree with IZAK on this. One could certainly say "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Palestine", or possibly "…to what would later become Israel", but "…to the Land of Israel" for that date is at least as biased in one direction as someone who speaks of Tel Aviv now as part of "Palestine" is in the other.

Any time in the last several hundred years before 1948, most Jews would have had no problem with calling the region "Palestine", and view of that term as a Roman insult to the Jews seems to me to be of recent vintage (or recent revival of an ancient grievance). The revival of "Land of Israel" was not widespread until nearly the time of the formation of the Isralie state.

I agree, though, that one should be careful how one deploys those terms because of the connotations they have now gained. "Palestinian Jew" is archaic, especially when referring to someone who returned from diaspora. (I see no problem with it if it refers to someone whose roots there are from time immemorial and the reference is pre-1948.) "Jews in Palestine" should be fine, though, as long as we are speaking pre-1948. - Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin

Have you checked if this is a recreation? If it is it should go through DRV. By the way, I've been spammed by an anon about this. It appears to be the creator of the article. They are clearly clueless about policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The assertion was that the restoration was under your aegis. (And, actually, I didn't recognize that this was you, because I hadn't ever noticed the shortened form of your username before seeing your sig just now, and it was not linked from the remark.) Was this remark on my talk page (which I took at face value) an abuse of your good name? - Jmabel | Talk 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I remember saying something similar, but I can't remember if I said it about that particular article. I can find no AFD comment, article edit or talk page edit I made in relation to this article. Let me check if I can find that comment, I think it was pretty recent but about another article entirely. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• The referring to votes suggests it was deletion related. I think it's best to ask the editor in question where it came from. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to just let it go through the process of AFD, now that that is started. - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Peronism

Regarding those edits, I don't really know what to do about them... My first impulse was to revert them because they are unsourced, but then the content of the previous version which was changed was also unsourced, and the current one is, as you said, not clearly wrong, and quite NPOV (with the exception of the wording about fascism). I'm by no means an expert on Peronism and I don't have good sources on me. If you feel you can do better, start a discussion in Talk:Peronism and invite the anonymous editor in question. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in general eventually need an overhaul, but I hesitate to wade in without good sources at hand. I'd barely dare write a factual biographical piece on Perón, let alone the much more slippery topic of peronismo. - Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Macedonio

Yes, I wrote the section on Macedonio and Borges. Then I got lazy and didn't put in any citations. Not very swift, considering I make my living doing this sort of thing. I'll insert the citations when I have a bit more time on my hands. Thanks for noticing.

Tsgarth 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob. It's mainly that I try to "defend" good material as articles develop, and part of the definition of "good" is "cited". - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Akha

Thanks for that - I will know how to do it now.  :) Tuviya 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nnatan's edits to Solomon's Temple

If you look at the history you'll see that this reader has repeatedly made edits and including material from and links to what appears to be his website. I added some comments to his talk page awhile ago. Perhaps someone besides myself should add some warnings so he won't think I'm the only one. At some point it may be appropriate to move toward the warning/blocking process. --Shirahadasha 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. Thought someone else should weigh in before using a stronger warning. FYI, the reason I began with language like "unfortunately" is the same reason I sought others' input before moving further, per WP:BLOCK:

Obvious cranks and users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary. Such persons should be dealt with kindly and patiently, but should be prevented from wreaking havoc over the period of weeks or months it would take to process an obvious Arbitration request. Remember to note the case on WP:ANI. Be kind.

Best, --Shirahadasha 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandon Bowman

Hey, if you're online, can you kill this one please? Brandon Bowman

Thanks --Ling.Nut 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is now properly cleaned up. I restored what appears to be a pre-attack version. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

oh. To me it looked top-to-bottom like garbage, or at the very least non-notable. Maybe I'll AfD the cleaned version. But thanks for your help! --Ling.Nut 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frummer creates User:Jesus

Hi Joe: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created [3] a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus#Problem with your user name. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jesus was already an indefinitely blocked user. User:FrummerThanThou didn't create the user, he just edited the user page. I suspect that as a non-admin, you had no way to know that, though. I have now appropriately marked the account as indef blocked. - Jmabel | Talk 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

1. No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
3. So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
4. What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
5. Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
6. It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
7. Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, why is this rather general discussion taking place on my user talk page? None of this seems to be addressed to me; indeed Shirahadasha's remark is addressed to Tomer and IZAK's to Shirahadasha. - Jmabel | Talk 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hit the wrong edit key —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeewiz (talk • contribs) 21 December 2006.

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi Joe: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

--Jeewiz 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Hi, I'm new here, sorry if I messed up someones post. I don't see the button to create my own response.

Treaty of the Pyrenees

Hello. The treaty of Pyreness' aticle shows events which took place several tens (or hundreds) of years before the Treaty and do not have a direct relationship with the treaty, but with Catalan language, Catalonia or French Rosillon's history. I'd like to see if we can reach an agreement, since you edited my previous edition --85.48.107.216 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (signed in Spanish Wikipedia as voj2005)

Leonte Tismăneanu, Vladimir Tismăneanu

Hi. These two articles have been subject to POV attacks, and they should be protected. Please see their talk pages and histories, because, in at least one case, we are talking about potential libel. Dahn 18:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the rationale

Just thanks really - I've been hoping that somebody might do just what you did, because I've been unable too :) Crimsone 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume that was with reference to this edit to Wikipedia:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy. You're welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that was it - my apologies (I'm not "firing on all cylinders" at the moment, as a friend put it today). Thanks. Crimsone 04:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Romanian communists

Hello Jmabel. Could we have your outside opinion as a native English speaker on two issues in the aforementioned articles? The issues I see are:

1. The meaning of "activist" in English.
2. The lack of sources calling Paunescu and Wurmbrand "activists".

My impression is that Dahn is artificially misuses the word in order to fit his classification purposes. From what I understood from non-wikipedian contexts, an "activist" is a dedicated party worker, which both Paunescu and Wurmbrand were not. In fact, I feel Dahn's concerns could be addressed through the creation of a special section for "Other notable party members". Dpotop 10:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

French Revolution from the abolition of feudalism to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy

You stated "The omission of women was implicit, but the recent wording here suggested it was explicit." If one does not know about the Declaration and reads that it was "a doctrine of popular sovereignty and equal opportunity" they would assume it included women and slaves. as this was not the case it should be clarified. Jessicanr 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think what I've written still keeps that clear, but also clarifies that this was simply a failure to remedy the status of women, not an active statement against women's rights. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Concenring this text, i think it is very important taht peole remember that it was written at the same time as the first French constitution. I've aklos added some comments n teh talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vleclercq (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Systematization

In case you hadn't noticed, Systematization has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

While the Webster dictionary has an entry for Systematization it does not have the sense of urban planning in English. The romanian Sistematizare simply means Urban planning. While there is no argument that what happened under the Ceausescu regime was, to say the least, a great urbanistic error, it is improper to define sistematizare as bad communist urban planning. It would be equivalent as way of thinking to apply this to any of the words which were misused during communism, such as liberty, democracy etc.

My objection concerned the first phrase of the article. "Systematization in Romania refers to a program of urban planning carried out under Nicolae Ceauşescu's communist regime" which is incorrect. Systematization (rumanian Sistematizare urbană as opposed to sistematizare teritorială) in Romania is any urban planning, regardless of the regime under which it is carried out. It is a discipline which is taught in schools of architecture. I don't think that there is any point in carrying out this discussion.

Afil 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sistematizare in Romanian has the general sense of urban planning, though since the 1980s it certainly also has the secondary connotation of Ceauşescu's specific schemes, much as "urban renewal" in the United States has the connotation of the all-too-similar schemes here in the 1960s.

"The Webster dictionary" is a completely ambiguous phrase: there have been at least several hundred English-language dictionaries published with "Webster" in their name. But even if you mean the ubabridged Merriam-Webster, the most authoritative of these, no one dictionary is the ultimate authority on the English language (and the closest thing to a contender is not the Merriam-Webster, it's the OED). You accused me of incompetence. Frankly, I'm insulted. I used a word in the same manner as the Encyclopædia Britannica, New York Review of Books and a Library of Congress Country study (which used it in a chapter title!), which I would think would be sufficient to establish this as correct English, not a mistranslation.

You are now telling me that there is no point in carrying on this discussion. I can't force you to discuss, I can't force you to apologize, but I am certainly not going to back down just because, based on a word not being in some particular dictionary, you have decided that it is not in the English language. - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

About the wikify and references, well there was so much content on that page I thought it was from pedia... i removed them when I saw it was a user page....

Other than that... odd fellow, I'd say.

I know a lot more people on Wikipedia who put up their own biographies. Some are accepted, others aren't. I know a musician whose bio keeps getting kicked off, and he's one of the forerunners of PowerPop music...

But this is the first guy I know who actually deserves to have a page of his own, but doesn't seem to want to...

Any idea why?

xCentaur |  talk  07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You're up for admin abuse!

See User talk:Jimbo Wales. Really, it's totally ridiculous, but I thought you should know anyways. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Skookum1

It looks like our friend User:Skookum1, who made all those colourful soapboxing remarks about Chinese people in Canada on various Talk pages, has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats[4][5]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. - Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply on "personal attacks"

Thank you for your brief note. I always welcome criticism from a responsible source. Three points before we both (?) let this matter drop: 1. My note was not, in my view, at all anonymous, nor have I sought to "hide". The "editor" in question can find my user name by clicking on the "History" button, and there it is. 2. I don't think this was an "ad hominem" attack at all. I sincerely felt that it was sound advice that this "editor" needed to hear. If you think about it a bit, you should feel the same way. 3. The person who did the vandalism knows who he is. I don't think his fellow inmate (good guess) is likely to take offence.Writtenright 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright

Namaste

"Namaste" (Sanskrit): "To you I bow." Writtenright 05:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright

As a token of appreciation for your criticism, I have "cleaned up" the article "1907 Romanian peasants' revolt". I cannot speak for the facts contained therein; I'm really a style and grammar man. I hope it's okay with you.Writtenright 06:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright