User talk:Jmabel/Archive 54

PD images

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.203.4.112 was just uploading PD images, linked externally. We should get them onto Commons and use them that way. - Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Going for FA status for Uncle Tom's Cabin

I know it says above that you're now inactive, but since you've been so involved in Uncle Tom's Cabin I wanted you to know I just completed a major revision. My aim is to take the article from Good Article to Featured Article status. I hope you will consider critiquing the new article and giving me feedback. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy your time away from Wikipedia. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I threatened to do'd it. I do'd it.

Juan, crazy screaming guy. Care to make an edit, or even better, some incoming links from relevant articles? Of the billion pictures easily findable by Google I can't find one with a proper license. I've asked for permission for a few. I went looking for him Monday and couldn't find him. Also, what shall I do with the Columbia City pictures? I'd gladly just give them to you assigning copyright to do whatever you want if you have some batch submission method for Commons. SchmuckyTheCat 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any different way to upload to Commons than anyone else. I'm not aware of any way to batch them. It's one by one; when I have a group like this I tend to use some cut-and-paste on my captions, changing only the few points that are different. All of these would belong in Commons:Category:Columbia City, Seattle, Washington. Some would belong in other Commons categories as well. If you don't feel like uploading them all, you might want to look at that category first, and upload only the ones that would bring something significantly new. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

udmr an extremist party

• Sfidarea UDMR: autonomia
• UDMR pretinde autonomie teritoriala si limba maghiara oficiala
• Marko vede autonomie teritoriala „in citiva ani“
• >Gandul, "Telul UDMR e autonomia teritoriala, care ni se cuvine", Adrian POPESCU, 25 septembrie 2006
• >Buna ziua, Ardeal, Vot pentru declaratia de autonomie, 2006.10.02 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.77.7.240 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I have no idea why this was written on my user talk page. For the record, I think that there are some extremists within the UDMR (as there are within most nationalist parties of most nations) but I think it is silly to call it an extremist party. It is a party representing a minority ethnicity (the Magyars) within Romania, which has been part of pretty much every Romanian government in the last decade. Needless to say, nowhere in the world do governing coalitions routinely include extremist nationalists of a minority ethnicity. - Jmabel | Talk 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikicite and Wikicat

Hi, sorry to see that you're mostly leaving Wikipedia, but I'm contacting you about an off-Wikipedia library project that may be of interest, m:Wikicite/w:Wikicat. We are now preparing to test this system on a password-entry wiki we have at my college - we expect to have things uploaded in the coming weeks. If you would be interested in helping in "piloting" this project please let me know here. By the way, I hope you also saw that we released the Version 0.5 CD recently - so your early work in that area finally bore fruit! Cheers, Walkerma 23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

just fyi

• just fyi, Taiwanese aborigines is now at WP:FAC.
• Ling.Nut 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed TfD for Template Infox ethnic groups

• I sent you an email in case you don't log in to Wikipedia. Sorry for buttonholing you twice. :-)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Scrap the infobox
• Ling.Nut 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at some length there; I think I've said my piece, please don't expect me to continue a long discussion on the matter. Please feel free to quote to my remarks later, as I suspect they may soon be lost in the shuffle likely to ensue. - Jmabel | Talk 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

As the creator of the Odorheiu Secuiesc article, can you please have a look at a comment I made on the talk page. Thanks, --KIDB 09:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently inactive

Dear Joe, I just would like tell you that your contributions have been very valuable to Wikipedia and in the topics I have seen, you behaved in a wise and balanced manner (even if you didn't always support my POWs :-) I hope that you will return soon --KIDB 09:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bergueda arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bergueda arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been effectively superseded by Image:Escut del Berguedà.svg. - Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alhadeff Sanctuary

Agree with your comment. See my talk page for response. Vmenkov 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Locator map of Alt Urgell.png

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Locator map of Alt Urgell.png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Locator map of Alt Urgell.png is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Locator map of Alt Urgell.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We now have a better locator map on Commons (I've just added it to Alt Urgell), so the point is moot. - Jmabel | Talk 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:METROREX ticket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:METROREX ticket.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A.N.S.W.E.R.

Hi. I left a (belated) response to your answer to my question about A.N.S.W.E.R. (That sounds a bit like a Abbott and Costello routine doesn't it). I can't tell if you are still an active user; if you are please feel free to respond to my response. Thanks! Jgui 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I would like to nominate Biruitorul for sysop, and would like to ask your oppinion, esspecially since I mostly edit, but know very little about the organization of WP.

My reasons: deletions of bad articles/templates (E.g. recently I have created 7 templates for Transnistria, but after discussions I've edited them and reduced to 3. Yet, I couldn't delete the 4, which noone but me editted, and had to place them in a page with delete discussions, where much more serious stuff is discussed), monitoring vandalism, supervision of new edits and if necessary (semi)protection of pages from vandals (some of them get very smart recently, IMO, and one has to read the whole article to find a smartly hidden edit --> e.g. do 3 malicious edits, then revert 2 of them as vandalism, leaving the 3rd well hidden, esp. after other people edit on top of it). Biruitorul has done serious revisions for many articles (just look at his contributions to Traian Băsescu or History of Maramureş, only two recent examples from an otherwise very long list) to see that his "red" contribution matches what the author(s) has/have been writing. Also, he would be helpful in greeting new editors (he knows how WP works, different standards, etc, and can give much better advice), thus inviting them to a civilized atmosphere, or at least creating for them an impression of civilized atmosphere - something useful if you want to prevent bad edits. He is present practically dayly, and his comments and edits are always inviting you to do better job -- at least that is their effect on me.

My questions to you are about your impressions about him:

1. do you think he should be a sysop? will he do a good job, be neutral, civil, etc?
2. do you see the need for a sysop? I do in a range of articles (most of which have nothing to do with Romania or Romanians), but maybe it's just my impression.

[1]

Dc76 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dc76: I appreciate the offer very much, and, as I've stated before (but you probably didn't see it), I will be glad to undergo an RfA beginning July 1st. Biruitorul 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OIC. fine:Dc76 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated Biruitorul last time, and will, of course, enthusiatically support him when he decides to pursue another RfA. - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius at FAR

I see that you're now quite a bit inactive, but if you happen to drop in, I had to put Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius up at FAR. I see that you brought this to featured quality 3 years ago, so I thought you might like to participate if you aren't too busy. Atropos 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Jmabel, Smee 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Looking back through some old stuff, I recently went and thanked User:Humus sapiens for the initial welcome to me. I myself have gotten into welcoming other helpful contributors that I have noticed who haven't yet been welcomed, and I forgot how nice it was to be welcomed myself. When I was an earlier contributor to the project, you assumed good faith with me, and were critical at times, but always very polite and very fair, and I just wanted to say thank you for that. I felt bad when I read your I am currently basically inactive on Wikipedia statement, but I realize that I too have seen some of the generally unfriendly attitude that you speak of on the project, and occassional impoliteness from users. At points like those it is therapeutic for me to focus on instead, creating new articles, sourced to multiple reputable citations, and I always enjoy the search for new citations and building a new article - but I can understand if you need to back away for a while. As to your second point in the statement, I also completely agree, that at times the project can get bogged down by statute law, and not case law, and at times the amount of bureacratic statute stuff is enough to make one dizzy! Sorry for rambling on here, but I just wanted to stop by and say thanks, and see what you were up to. And also, 60,000 edits! Wow. I had not realized. Whatever you end up deciding to do as a contributor, I still believe that the majority of the community has appreciated your work on the project. Yours, Smee 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Check these out

Hey Joe I noticed these and others today:

1. 14:46, 29 May 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Jmabel/songs (top)
2. 14:44, 29 May 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Jmabel/songs (remove categories from user page)
3. last) 14:52, 29 May 2007 Otto4711 (Talk | contribs) (15,793 bytes) (remove categories from user page)

at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pmanderson/List_of_songs_containing_covert_references_to_real_musicians

This user - User:Otto4711 - likes to delete stuff and he's checking out your songs.

Please check into it. Modernist 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care. If it's not in article space, it probably shouldn't have categories; my view is that it should be in article space. - Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think you should give it a try/with a new name/as an article. Lets watch it a little better this time. Modernist 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Catalan comarca Bergueda.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Catalan comarca Bergueda.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 09:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for saying it is non-free? It is marked as "GFDL presumed" with a clear explanation. It was originally uploaded in the Catalan Wikipedia by Llull, who makes a lot of maps; it is old enough that people weren't at that time being as explicit about licenses when they uploaded. But it seems to have been superseded in the Berguedà article, so I really don't care if it is kept or not. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry for that. I had reverted all edits made by the bot on 1 June. I must have missed this image. Sorry once again. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ann_Powers_and_Stephin_Merritt.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ann_Powers_and_Stephin_Merritt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No strong objection to removing, but possibly worth keeping just for the juxtaposition. I'll discuss further at the deletion discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Joe, I'm curious what you think about all the sockpuppet problems with Lisa Budd, Newport, Poetlister, Runcorn, and how genuine this article is: [2] I am concerned. Thanks Modernist 22:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware of sockpuppet problems with these people. If there are sockpuppet problems, they should be addressed as such; in any case, they have no bearing on the article, as far as I can see, though they may have bearing on the AFD discussion (if someone is appearing twice under different names). Other than the JYB citations, most of the citations there are mine, and I'm certainly no one's sockpuppet.

As far as I can see, though, no one has made more than a vague, insubstantial claim that the article is in any way inaccurate. The argument against it seems to be that it is inappropriate or trivial. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have weighed in my opinion at the AFD and I'll stand by it. Modernist 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. (I've addressed the same to a couple more users.) Sorry to bother you if you are not interested in the subject. :Dc76 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Interested in the subject, but not interested in working on it right now. If it is literally vandalism, report it as such. If it's a content dispute, handle it accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would really appreciate your input and oppinion when you will have time. BTW, in general, where is the appropriate place to report vandalism when it occures? Until now, I simply asked other users, among which sometimes were ones that knew better the rules. But I actually never "reported vandalism" myself. :Dc76 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Various levels for reporting vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is the best guide. - Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful link. :Dc76 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on a long-forgotten issue

Hi again. I do not know if this interests you any longer, but I happened to find again what had originally caught my eye in the case involving Vintila Barbu's plagiarism on SLOMR, which had prompted all the hubbab about me "not assuming good faith", "not providing proof" etc. Here is his first version of the article, which, you will note, he authored in one go; here (on pages 34-35 of the document - not of the pdf), you will find the text he basically copy-pasted to complete one half of the text. I'm pretty sure looking over the references or other potential sources of inspiration will provide another 49% of the text, while the creative absurdities such as "Further readings" are entirely his own :). This is what I had called to his attention to, and, if you remember, he admitted to have done it (through a message on my page). I wish I had preserved the link to begin with, and not go AGF on him; it would have spared me his insults, his heckling, his stalking, and his disruptions. Dahn 01:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I hope you don't mind, but I don't particularly want to get involved. If there is some concrete action you feel you need from me on this, let me know; otherwise, I'm leaving this alone. - Jmabel | Talk 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay. I just wanted to fill in the missing parts, as the issue seems to have been buried - he does not seem to be active, but I think this can prove provide context in case of further disruption from his part. As I have said, this happened to catch my eye (I was sourcing Romanian Communist Party, and was using Deletant as one of the references; what makes this especially serious is that Deletant isn't even mentioned as reference in his version).

Btw: I glanced over the discussions you had over references in Piteşti prison, and noticed that he had claimed a reference for the info he had added to the text - I'm having trouble finding that post, but do you happen to know what it is? I don't remember reading about those details in any of the sources for the article, and they remain unreferenced (which is absurd, given that the details are really specific - people reported to have made to eat their own feces etc.). I also need to verify how reliable the source is. In case the details are not found in the source or the source proves unreliable, I'll be reverting the article some steps back, and hopefully that will be the end of it. Dahn 03:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I have nothing to add to what may be in writing there; it's not like I've been giving this any thought lately. - Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Nancy_Pearl_action_figure.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Nancy_Pearl_action_figure.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Nazism thread

Hallo, I address you as an admin. Perhaps it is just my impression, but I think first message in the thread Talk:Nazism#Neutral_Nazism posted by User:James A. Donald cannot stay. There is a steady supply of contributions (+25 allready) which mostly agree with the first message. I see that you have added a comment too, which even seems to comply with the tenor of the first message, but perhaps it should be reconsidered. My objections against the first message are:

• One might argue that because Nazism is an evil ideology, it deserves biased articles, but then we should also have biased articles against Communism and Islam and people will dispute where to draw the line. This actually says that Communism and Islam are evil ideologies, and evil in a way comparable to Nazism. I think this is not an acceptable opinion in a wikipedia discussion.
• The message calls Nazism appealing five times.
• It characterizes Nazism by appealed to people's altruism and desire for self sacrifice, not to greed and hatred. Nazism may have had some of these aspects, but it draws an entire wrong picture, for example by not mentioning antisemitism, rassism, herrenmenschism and so on.
• claims that the movie Triumph of the Will did not show hate or violence, while quotes in wikipedia/wikisource from it are clearly violent.

I don't want any sanctions against to be enforced against James A. Donald, who may have written this in good faith. But actually, I see no other solution than to remove the whole message from the talk page. Perhaps you can have a look at it, thanks.--Schwalker 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My only comment on that thread (made nearly a year ago) was "NPOV doesn't mean some kind of balance between pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi. It means letting the facts speak for themselves." I stand by that. As for James A. Donald, I'd let his remarks show himself for what he is. I don't see anything there so egregious as to require removal. There is a pretty strong presumption against censoring talk pages if the remarks are anything like on topic. - Jmabel | Talk 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not read carefully enough the context of your contribution to the thread. I see now that it is not an approval of the first message. In my opinion, the Donald message alone is egregious enough to be deleted, or modified (or at least directly disputed). However, the main problem is the evolution of the whole threat. People seem to "discuss", but actually they don't really react on what the others say, but just state their opinions about allegedly good aspects of Nazism. For example, see 24.239.162.211, 13 June 2007, who in an agressive tone (among other slanders) prohibits others to make ethical judgements about Nazism. Or Humanophage drops an anti-communist slander. Followed by "Sam, Australia" who "agrees" with "Humanophage" (who had said nothing about racism), that the article should not focus too much on racism. No one seems to feel obliged to post strict replies, which these contributions would deserve. A reason could be that the thread is not related to a particular editing conflict in the article.--Schwalker 11:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Chin Gee Hee on DYK

On 23 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chin Gee Hee, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--JayHenry 15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bergueda flag.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bergueda flag.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's orphaned, kill it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu

Stiu ca vrei sa fii pasiv pe Wiki, dar ceva cam ciudat ii s-a intamplat lui Anonimu. Niste moderatori i-au sters un disclaimer care zicea in felul urmator:

This user may delete comments made by ultra-nationalist editors, as well as blind supporters, on his talk page.

L-au blocat pe o saptamana si pe mine m-au avertizat. Atuncea m-am decis sa folosest acelasi userbox care folosesti si tu, care spune in felul urmator:

This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation

Si asta ei au sters si pana la urma au protejat si pagina lui de discutie. Ei spun ca acest lucru este un atac personal. Nici unul din ei nu l-au avertizat pe Anonimu, nici nu au comunicat cu el si cand l-au raportat pe ANI, eu nu a fost notificat. Mie asta nu mi se pare normal. Poti sa-l ajuti cu ceva? Are nevoie de cineva sa-i ia partea, dar eu nu prea am credibilitate. Uite si aici. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "a lot of articles will become propaganda" seems a bit melodramatic, but that's not against any rule. But whatever it is, it is certainly not a personal attack. I can't see any good basis for removing it; I think your restoring it was reasonable, but probably not worth fighting over. Given that your own politics fall within what would generally be described as nationalist, and that you were apparently not offended by the remark (indeed, if I'm tracking correctly, you tried to restore it), this all seems a bit bizarre.

Further, as far as I know, a user is entitled to do pretty much anything with his/her own user talk page (although hiding criticisms is usually considered a bit gauche). Announcing one's intent with respect to this seems to be nothing more or less than fair warning.

Feel free to quote me; feel free to ask my opinion here about any specific edit; etc.; but I'm not wading in beyond that. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly right: he even removed one of my comments. See here. Your word weights more than my word, on Wiki. Nu vrei sa-l ajuti? --Thus Spake Anittas 08:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, feel free to quote my remarks, or to point someone to where I've made them, but I don't see what more I can do than say that I disagree with the other administrator's take on this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You could try to play an active role, such as planning a possible RFC and ask other admins that trust your opinion to support us, but your passive support is also appreciated. I will see what I can do about this. I may change the strategy 180-degrees. In that case, I will email you. There might be something else you could do. And in case you misunderstood my intentions, this is not only about me and Anonimu. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox deleted

User:Sceptre has deleted one of your userboxes where you expressed your personal preferences against ultra-nationalistic rhetoric. Other users have suffered the same fate and according to User:Sceptre, having such an userbox constitutes as a personal attack. Not all agree with this argument and if you are one of those people who disagree with User:Sceptre's argument, you are welcome to make your point at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may also read this discussion to see what things had been said on this controversial subject. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT regarding polemical statements. As an admin, you should know better. Will ^(talk) 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have to "know better." There is nothing offensive or attacking in that userbox--it might as well have said "this user chooses not to listen to Italian opera." It's an opinion, not a polemic. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still inappropriate content for simply having the word "nationalist". May sound like a logical fallacy, but the use of the word on Wikipedia is sickening. Will ^(talk) 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely do not think that this statement violated that rule, nor does my praise for various users whose work I consider good, nor my discussion of systemic bias. I have taken this up in the relevant place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since clearly I have been caught up in the crossfire of something that has little to do with me. - Jmabel | Talk 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the images

I appreciate your recent contribution of Brave Combo and Carl Finch images to the WikiMedia Commons. I've already integrated a couple of them into the relevant articles and will be using others as I am able to create articles for other members of the band. - Dravecky 21:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Photographer's Barnstar

Moved to User:Jmabel/Barnstars. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bergueda flag.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bergueda flag.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, in answer to exactly the same notice, if it's orphaned, kill it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re butterflies

Hi Joe,

thanks for uploading the images. We're quite weak in North American butterflies in Wikipedia, even as far as checklists and articles are concerned. I am hoping some champion of American Lepidoptera will come forth and help develop this aspect, especially as we get a large number of queries regarding American butterflies.

I would also recommend that you take images of the butterflies in the countryside around your home and garden also.

Regards, AshLin 08:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to do that if I get the opportunity. This was a "target-rich environment". - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marquis de Sade in popular culture

Marquis de Sade in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Marquis de Sade in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquis de Sade in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Marquis de Sade in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al Hopkins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

GDP of Romania or simply redirect to Economy of Romania?

How is it better? To have 2 articles or simply a redirect to Economy of Romania?--156.17.75.100 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the "contributor" proxy wasting everyone's energy with this nonsense is Bonaparte... Let's see how long until the proxy is banned. Dahn 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only imagine two reasons why this would have reason to be a separate article:

1. Sheer size
2. If there were significant, citable controversies over calculating the GDP of Romania or over projections of future GDP, and only if these controversies were specific to Romania and did not apply to many other countries.

Right now, the article is reasonably large, but a lot of it seems to be (apparently) unattributed projections of what the Romanian economy would look like if it continued a very healthy growth rate. Such projections aren't worth much (the chart is big, but the actual knowable data is tiny), and there is no discussion at all here of the basis for these projections or the degree to which they may be controversial. Meanwhile, the article is lacking in significant historical data which is what actually might make a substantive treatment of the topic and useful encyclopedia content.

In short, it looks pretty useless to me. - Jmabel | Talk 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish atheists

Hello, I came across your name in various places involving Jewish related categories and I thought you might be interested to know that Category:Jewish atheists is up for possible deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_25#Category:Jewish_atheists. I have no idea what you might have to say on the subject, but I regard you as a very thoughtful editor, so I thought you might have some valuable insights to offer, if you care to take part in the discussion. Regards, Cgingold 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) PS - If you're interested, don't delay -- the discussion is already going into its fourth day.

Call for help (Commons)

[Moved from my user page] Hey thanks for the headsup about those butterfly images u uploaded. I've tried to id them. Got most I think. Cheers --Viren 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)