User talk:Jmabel/Archive 16

Vermont Republic

J, I reverted your edit regarding the Vermont Republic in Historic regions of the United States (I see the talk has been removed from the latter to that former article's talk page). The previous discussion on this concluded with a consensus to include it under the "self-declared" category (where it is now) instead of independent nation, primarily because none of us could find any evidence that any foreign nation (including the U.S.) had ever recognized its existence (in contrast to the other nations on the list, which definitely did achieve international recognition). As such, as far as I know, the acquisition of those nations' territories was negotiated as an agreement between sovereign powers. Granted this is only one criterion. If you're of the mind to put forth other evidence or a different argument, please feel free to do so. -- Decumanus 01:34, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

No problem. I figured as such. By the way, I'm heartened by your defense of Armenian people. -- Decumanus 21:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

U.S. regions vote

The vote has ended. You can find the results here. Please feel free, to participate in a follow up discussion. Thanks for your partipation. -JCarriker 06:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know that U.S. Southern states has been moved to Southern United States. There seems to be no problems as yet, hopefully this will hold up for this one and also other article in the future. Again, thanks for your input. -JCarriker 06:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Caption on the OW page

When I saw the addition to the caption that you mention on the Wilde talk page I had the same question that you do. I agree that it doesn't seem quite appropriate for the article, although, if true, it is a somewhat interesting fact. I just hope that it is not a way of slipping the vandalism that ocassionally occurs on Oscar's page through the side door. Maybe it could be moved to the talk page.MarnetteD | Talk 14:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• I just found a wiki page entitled Dublin statues and their nicknames where this moniker is mentioned. Maybe some kind of link between the caption and this page would be appropriate. I'll let you decide. MarnetteD | Talk 16:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

disrupting wikipedia policy vote

You voted once for the policy at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 17:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Please review U.S. regions page

Please review the WikiProject main page. I believe I've successfully merged the new policy, with the policy we decided to keep. I could be wrong and as you know can be notorioulsy unclear at times. I'll post my idea for instituting the new policy on the talk page soon, but I believe my proposed way will take some time as such it will probably take place when you are un available. First on the list is my home region, U.S. South and it's related articles. P.S. I'm stretched right now but I'll try to make it to ]]Wiley next Tuesday or Thursday so you'll know something before you leave. -JCarriker 21:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Economics

"Your recent edits at Economics may not be vandalism in the narrow sense, but they are certainly unencyclopedic." Yeah, I knew that at the time. It seemed clever, though, and the damage was minor. It took 46 minutes to get reverted, which I was most interested in. My apologies if it caused you to have a heart attack. One question, though: the fellow who reverted my edit also deleted the "associative economics" section already present. Was that really vandalism as well? --Orborde 05:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I was up way late and binging on Uncyclopedia, so I'm not sure I could have been called rational at the time, either. Side note: This seems like a somewhat silly way to communicate. Is there a more efficient way to use talk pages that doesn't induce fragmentation? --Orborde 05:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The way you avoid fragmentation is to copy, like I just did. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're a stinking genius. Thanks. --Orborde 05:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Federico García Lorca

You ask (somewhat rudely) in your edit summary for your recent edit to Federico García Lorca, 'What is this with people continually removing citations?'. If you look at the previous edit it was far from obvious that this link was a citation -- it was simply included in the middle of the page with the link text 'Democratic Development and Reckoning with the Past: The Case of Spain in Comparative Context'. That's why I removed it. Now that you've actually made it *look* like a citation instead of an external link in an inappropriate place I have no problem with it. --Ngb 08:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

IZAK's images on PUI

The reason all those are listed there is that we got the run around from him on one image, so I just listed everything. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 10:47, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Jewish language

You may be interested in the discussion brewing at Template_talk:Jewish_language#Attention-stealing_template. Tomer ^TALK 17:38, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Margaret McBride

I'd almost surely have tried to resolve our ed-conf by merging your stub in, rather than clobbering it after rescuing it to the talk, except that i had just said "Yes, i know i said i'd wind it up quickly, and i just saved the article; it'll be 30 sec." It sounds like you may be too busy to consider it a kindness if give you the chance to come up with the right merge. [smile] But i'll put it off until the 21st, or longer if you ask me. I certainly don't mind doing the merge, but it would have seemed like a waste not to give you the chance if you prefer. Thanks in any case.
Reply here, and i'll check for any response.
--Jerzy~t 00:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why Jerzy thinks he and I had an edit conflict over this page; I've responded on his talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[Smile] You have no reason to think we had an ed conflict, bcz you were at the end of it that finished first. I know we had one, bcz i was on the other end, the end the system notifies of the conflict (and bcz the history shows that the version other than mine is what you added in your edit). What is unusual about this is that i started editing before you (which you have no way of knowing until i tell you), wrote a big bunch without saving, went to bed, got up, read the paper, wrote more, and finished my edit, as you say, long after you.
What i quoted myself as saying was, no, not said to you; its relevance was by way of excusing my lack of effort to resolve the conflict other than by overwriting your edit, which was the quick way out. (Perhaps you don't have occasion to make promises, outside cyberspace, about when you are going to leave your terminal; if not you might not appreciate the situation.)
I regret any impression i left that you did anything wrong or caused me any avoidable inconvenience. My sole intent was to give you information, and enhance your degree of choice about what comes next.
Likewise, the "right merge" didn't refer to any "wrong merge" by you, but rather to the prospect that i might rush, in deciding how to merge our contributions, or misvalue yours in light of my excessive immersion in researching and composing mine; my hope was and is that you are more likely to make the right merge than i would be.
I'm pleased that you are finding the time, despite your obviously much more burdened schedule, to have that chance.
Thanks for the collaboration.
--Jerzy~t 04:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism in the United States

I see that in previous edits you have done some valid edits. Your approach with regard to my edit, however, I believe is considered vandalism. You totally erased an edit with almost no justification and before discussing it on the board. This is entirely contrary to Wiki policy. Because you seem to have done other valid edits and are not normally known as a vandal, I will give you an opportunity to use the discussion to revert to my edit, or to improve what I edited. But if you insist on erasing it, we will be in an edit war just as you seem to frequently get in, only this time it is my edit that is the valid approach. --Noitall 03:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate discussing the subject of the edits. In your first edit, you change the definition back to "controversial" from my "perjorative." In your second edit, you change the meaning by stating that the perjorative usage primarily comes from paleoconservatives. My argument in the talk page is that the term neoconservative is by definition perjorative, whether it is used from people from the left or right. Also, although I have not edited it yet, I think the change in meaning over the years or change to make the term meaningless is significant. --Noitall 04:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, what I did was by no means vandalism. Here are the edit summaries in question:

1. (cur) (last) 11:28, May 15, 2005 Jmabel m (fix typo in my previous, more major, edit)
2. (cur) (last) 11:25, May 15, 2005 Jmabel (...but having done that, I guess "pejorative" should be restored in terms of use by the paleos. Also, some disambiguation)
3. (cur) (last) 11:18, May 15, 2005 Jmabel (The term is clearly not inherently pejorative, since Irving Kristol used it in the title of one of his books)

…and this shows the cumulative effect. See also the relevant discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Some people have been throwing accusations of vandalism pretty lightly, lately.

By the way, I think the claim that I "frequently" get in edit wars is ridiculous. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

On this one talk page, you claimed yourself to be in 2 edit wars (not counting the unjustified edit war with me) and were "appalled" at another edit done by a well-meaning person. If you do not listen to reason, that's ok. I made my arguments on the talk page, not on the article itself. But I will give up on this page since it is obviously "yours" and you will get what you want. I suppose that I will not respond to some of your other arguments that may or may not be valid, because you obviously have a vice grip on "your" article, and it is pointless to make a reasonable argument. I do not think that these are good qualities for an adminstrator and, as I said before, some of these practices are contrary to Wiki policy. --Noitall 06:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A "consensus" vote of 3 by the blind, deaf and dumb does not make it accurate or right. --Noitall 07:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Whereas, apparently one vote by the arrogant does.

FWIW, I did not engage in "2 edit wars" on that page: the comments are precisely my requests for a third party to look into a disagreement with someone who was not willing to have a discussion, and was simply reinserting information I objected to. In both cases, the third party concurred with me. The edit by which I was "appalled" was insertion of a wildly anti-Semitic attack on the neoconservatives by Kevin MacDonald as if it were simply factual. Judging by Noitall's own edits, I'd expect him to share my opinion in this matter (he, after all, wants to say that the very term "neoconservative" is pejorative). But apparently he'd rather have a grievance against me than look at what I actually do around here. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Neoconservatism in the United States

FYI, I ghuess I wasn't clear in my remarks. I was responding to Noitall, who wrote (in response to a comment of my own):

I will not respond again to stupidity when the answer is before your nose.

Thus, when I wrote: "I apologize for being such a stupid editor, but this stupid editor... " the "stupid editor" in my question was myself. Not only am I a stupid editor, but I'm an unclear writer too! Yikes. -Willmcw 05:05, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please read

I asked you previously to help me merge U.S. West and American West, and in this post I am not asking it again, but rather that you read American West and give me your opinion on my talk page. The article is riddled with POV (especially romanticism), tons of presumably original "adjusted" research, and a rather ardent condescension towards WikiProject U.S. regions policies. The definition, as per states included, is a common one, but the statement that it is more prominent than the Census Bureau region.... I'm going to babble incessantly and waste your time if I continue so, let me cut to the chase in rather uncharacteristic bluntness; I'm too biased to look at this article and merge it without getting a second opinion. I can do the work, but I need help in seeing other vantage points, that I so easily see with other issues. Everyone has faults; this is one of mine. -JCarriker 11:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight. I agree, its not much of an article, I find the deletion button at the side of the article rather tempting, but that little inclusionist voice in my head tells me surely something can be salvaged. If you haven't read U.S. West (soon to be Western United States) it's a rather extensive article and includes most of this information in a more encyclopedic way. For that reason, as well as the snide tone, I suspect the article was created to go around the other article.

I'm bulleting my remaing response because I've already written three 1,000 word post on this subject, only to realized I was preachign to the choir, delete, and start again- this format should moderate my verbosity, some. (Jmabel's posts are italcized; JCarriker's are not, for those who read other people's talk)

• I don't think Americans would have any real agreement on what is meant by "the West".
  • Agreed.
• Most of us here on the Pacific Coast do not consider ourselves part of "the West" which, ironically, we use to refer to the states east of us. Which is to say that on a map, I'd show California, Oregon, and Washington in the color indicating states that may or may not be included.
  • I already supected as much, having someone with authority saying it helps. I'll do what I can to amend the map. However, please note that Texas is east of California and likewise may or may not be included. It's also root strong ties to the another region the South, IMO that mean it has more of a reason to not be included than California, and indeed is certainly exclude from the region more,
• As for the remark about the census region: you are right that it seems a bit snide, though not inaccurate. Almost no one other than the government uses the government's definition of "the West".
  • As I've said before, it is the most common defintion. It is the one taught in schools and is used outside of the government. Junior Scholastic uses it, and the Weather Channel uses an amended version. That said, its not the only defintion of the region and should not be used to exclude other interpretations.
• A "West" that doesn't include any of Texas or Oklahoma? I've never heard anyone in colloquial conversation use the term that way.
  • I'm not really sure where you get this from. I'd say the western portions of TX & OK certainly should be included. The only way I would say Texas should be excluded was if it could only be shown in one region-- I find its exclusion from the South highly offensive as the South has a history and culture and by removing my homestate it implies, nay states that millions of both white and black Southerns in Texas are not Southern in effect stripping them of their heritage. This engages my surrvival instincts, and only under such circumstances would I respond by excluding Texas from any other region. This is precisely the type of situation that WikiProject U.S. regions tries to prevent.

Again. Thanks, for your help. Also on your writing project, and impending absence Bonne chance! -JCarriker 12:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

References

I reverted my deletion, since you convinced me that the reference was not without a reason. However I still disagree. Today English Colonel General covers significantly more material even for German mlitary, and the message is no longer valid (as well as your argument about vouching about sourcing). The same will probably be valid with all other articles of this kind. I know that you know that texts evolve.

May I suggest that if someone wants to maintain the texts in sync and the rest of what you wrote in your mesage to me, the talk page is a good place for this. Cross-language reference is IMO akin to selfreference, with the policy to avoid them. All your concerns are about technical works and should not bother a user of the wikipedia. Mikkalai 14:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"DAM, Da Arabic MCs" in Lod

Sorry. I have put this line back. However, search in Google found only one reference to the "DAM, Da Arabic MCs", except sites which echo Wikipedia. It would be useful if you could make a page DAM, Da Arabic MCs to explain who or what they are. Otherwise, there will always be those who look quickly and class them as "yet another non-notable pop music group". Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve Ballmer

Ooops, I missed the chanting part while reverting! thanks! So, how can i inject into the article something like "Monkeyboy, lose some weight!" ? :)

Project2501a 08:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Librarians

I recall that you had expressed some interest in outreach to librarians about Wikipedia, and I thought I'd call the new WikiProject Librarians to your attention. It has some professional and student librarians getting involved, looks interesting, and I think the endeavor might benefit from your input. --Michael Snow 17:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yehudei sheqolenique

Yehudei sheqolenique, ever heard of them? Can you look at and verify the article at all? Thanks IZAK 10:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tables

Hello there !. this is messhermit again. Say, could yo help me to fix this tables in a much more accurate way? they are a little messy right now, and I don't known how to fix them. Take a look when u can: List of Presidents of Peru. thanks. Messhermit 18:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

done, I think -- Jmabel | Talk 18:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Party (Romania)

Try it now.

MSTCrow 08:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorist categories again

As you know, Category:Terrorist organizations has now been deleted. However, much to my dismay, I have discovered that its six subcategories still exist. Hence, we still have:

• Category:Islamic terrorist organizations
• Category:Leftist terrorist organizations
• Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations
• Category:Terrorist organizations based in the United States
• Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland
• Category:Zionist terrorist organizations

which are now subcategories of Category:Irregular military. I would have thought that a vote to delete a category would also be a vote to delete its subcategories (how could the inclusion/exclusion criteria be any different?), but alas this appears not the case ([1]). Thoughts? -- Viajero 11:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nominate them for deletion. Obviously, I'll vote to delete them. Remind me when this comes up, because I'm only minimally on Wikipedia the next few weeks.

Ah, someone beat me to it. Good. -- Viajero | Talk 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have posted this proposal to amend deletion policy: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion_policies#A_vote_on_a_category_is_a_vote_on_subscategories. Any comments, additions, qualifications welcome. -- Viajero | Talk 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Peruvian, Non-Peruvian's Wikipedians list

Hello! I thought you might interested in adding your self to the Peruvian Wikipedian's list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Peru

which one?

I wouldn't like to see you squander any of the little time you have available for Wikipedia at the moment on trivial matters, but I just wanted to point out that a link on your user page, Congo_Civil_War, points to a disambiguation page. -- Viajero | Talk 17:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)