User talk:Jmabel/Archive 23

Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd

Hi Joe, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikibio

You have been wikibioed. Please review it and edit it, at your convenience. Thanks. -JCarriker 07:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course your not out of line to edit your own wikibio. Who knows more about Jmabel than Joe Mabel? I imagine the most informative wikibios will have had significant input from their sunjects. Cheers? -JCarriker 06:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• The red links are meant to encourage wikibio creation, just as the inclusion of red linked articles is. If you want you could make the user page the main link and have a superscripted wikibio link behind it, aso Jmabel ^wikibio or Essjay ^wikibio. -JCarriker 06:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Your removal of Cite Your Sources from your wikibio. Why don't you move it to Wikipediology's essay section and insert the mention of your work back into your wikibio. -JCarriker 08:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You're Welcome

You're welcome. I didn't want anybody coming across that section in your talk page to get the wrong impression about your edits. I for one like what you have done for the Romania articles. -Alexander 007 22:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello,

I have some trouble understanding copyright laws. For example, is this work of the US Geological Survey [1] under copyright (and what exactly is or isn't under copyright : text, images) ?) ?

Thanks in advance.

If you could answer there : fr:Poppy.

Poppypetty 07:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Almost everything published by the U.S. government is public domain. I can't think of anything in the US Geological Survey that would be among the few exceptions. I left a note at fr:Poppy as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer. Does it mean that we can use the text (it sounds strange to me) ?. Poppypetty 04:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Black legend

Thanks for your vigilance. It's a significant propaganda subject, so I'm trying to get fair Spanish input to make the article more or less accurate and balanced, in both languages (I dont' speak Spanish, and my knowledge of the subject is marginal) - hopeless perhaps, but can you assist? The end of the discussion page shows my attempts. Are the people I'm talking to the same ones you keep reverting?shtove 23:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Catalan comarca Vall d'Aran.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Catalan comarca Vall d'Aran.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Thue | talk 11:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

citation for largest romanian cities

Hi Jmabel,

you asked for a citation concerning what I've added, please look at the link (sorry for you it is in romanian):

http://www.hotnews.ro/articol_915-Bucuresti-cea-mai-aglomerata-metropola-europeana.htm

and was first published in Evenimentul Zilei by Magda Spiridon in 18 iun 2004. Wish you all the best!

Tourism hype

I have now twice removed a section called "Tourism in Romania" (well, the first time it was "Turism..."). It's a perfectly valid topic, but the content was nothing but unencyclopedic hype. For the record, here is what it said. Someone needs to cover the topic a lot better than this if they want it in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[begin deleted text]

Tourism in Romania is a very riched source of value for the romanian economy. Often Romania is characterized by the followings:

• "… why should you go to Romania? The straight answer is because it is one of the most beautiful countries of Southeast Europe." (The Blue Guide)
• "Few regions offer a more dazzling display of cultural and artistic treasures than Romania." (Smithsonian Journeys)
• "Considered by many the most beautiful country in Eastern-Europe, Romania still claims regions that seem bastions of a medieval past long since lost elsewhere." (Fodor's Eastern and Central Europe)
• "Romania has majestic castles, medieval towns, great hiking and wildlife…" (The Lonely Planet)

[end deleted text]

---

I think this is the proof that you JMABEL have something against ROMANIA, you keep deleting the lines about tourism in Romania and you told us that you try to be neutral and not BIAS, but look, you are still deleting these very good lines... is there something that you don't like? well I don't care, ok? you don't want other people to discover Romania? Belive me Romania has changed since you left, don't be caught in your trap and own ideas and image about Romania, behave more decently! it was just a perfectly text on turism on Romania, actually I propose you not to interfere any more since you cannot accept the NETRAL POINTS OF VIEW OF FOREIGN PEOPLE on ROMANIA! (The Blue Guide),(Smithsonian Journeys),(Fodor's Eastern and Central Europe),(The Lonely Planet)

I have to admit I am very good in detecting your bias ideas, you should let romanians build their site since we know more about our country than you an ignorant nerd.

I really appreciate your work as a whole but we don't have to agree on all the issues, it would not be democratic, see you next time Jmabel, until then my best wishes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 18 Oct 2005

---

Salut Joe

sper te-ai lamurit si nu mai schimbi inutil de florile marului site-ul romaniei, daca vrei sa fii neutru dupa cum tot afirmi de ce stergi pareri neutre ale unor reviste despre Romania? reflecteaza te rog mai bine inainte sa dai cu batul in balta cum de multe ori faci, in rest sper ca intelegi ca Romania are un potential turistic enorm mai mare decat al tarilor din jur si de aceea trebuie accentuat acest lucru, cu speranta ca reusesc sa te conving iti doresc ca un adevarat wikepedian ce te doresti succes mai departe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 18 Oct 2005

U.S. Presidential nicknames

I added references to the article and wrote in the discussion how I believe some of this nicknames need more detail on their origins. If I have time, I can fill in specifics on some of nicknames. It just seem to me that the casual reader unfamiliar with the U.S. Presidents will wonder how a president acquired a particular nickname. You seem to have written much of this article, so I will defer to what you think is best. --LibraryLion 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Romanian language

Hi Joe. Can you please have a look at the Romanian language talk page? I have a question regarding the NPOV in related articles. Thanks. --AdiJapan 12:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Move to Macedonians (ethnic group)

Hey Jmabel, from what I understand you're involved in many articles involving ethnic minorities and ethnic rights, so I want to draw your attention to a recent move.

I and a number of other Wikipedians just convinced an Administrator,User:RN, to move the article "Macedonia (Slav)" or "Macedonian Slavs" to Macedonians (ethnic group) (reasoning for the move given on Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)). Inevitably, an uproar will be raised over this action (which I fully support as an acceptable solution within Wikipedia).

Many of this ethnic group find "Macedonian Slavs" insulting, and there is no other, current ethnic group (as opposed to a portion of other larger, ethnic groups) who call themselves Macedonians. Most sources refer to them as Macedonians, also. -Alexander 007 05:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Castellers

Hi! I've seen you ask for the rights on casteller's pictures in catalan wikipedia. I think the picture you have in the english wikipedia (Image:Castellers 3de7.jpg) is scanned from a postcard, and we can't use it. That's why I uploaded other pictures as ca:Imatge:4 de 9 amb folre.jpg directly from the Colla Castellers de Barcelona with their agreement.

If you need more information about that, you can find me at my catalan discussion page ca:Usuari_Discussió:Jordi_TB.

I don't realy know how works these copyright affairs... however, about the Castellers de Barcelona's images, I can explain you: they own the copyright (that's sure) and I asked the vice-president the permission to upload them to the wikipedia. Isn't enough? I'm a member of Castellers de Barcelona, I can obtain what we need if that's not enough. Just tell me what is necessary. Thanks. ca:Usuari_Discussió:Jordi_TB

fascists coming...

Hi, Joe. Please take a look to the user's page of User:El Rei, and his recent editions in catalan issues.

I don't want to take part in any boring childish revertion war: I've been trying to give chances to consensus, to avoid direct confrontation; and keep building a strong net of stubs and categories that can remain. What can we do? --Joan sense nick 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wedgwood Rock

I recently posted a picture of the Wedgwood Rock, but I didn't include copyright information. I just emailed the person that runs the site where I got that picture. If he says to keep it off, than we can delete it. -Alexseattle 02:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I get your vote?

I have been nominated for an adminship and I was wondering if I could get your vote. If you feel inclined, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy and cast your "yes" or "not in a million years." Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mihai Pelin & co

The complete title is "Invazia sovietica, 1940" de Mihai Pelin . It's rather hard to be more precise , since I don't own the actual book. There was a zipped scan version of it at [2] - where I've also downloaded it a year or so ago - however the site's gone now and I've deleted the zip soon after reading the book. Sorry for giving such incomplete information on the translation page, however that's the best I could give. Dunemaire 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nah, don't feel sorry - I was too jumpy, I think. So what should I do next time when I meet a fragment from a book that I remember but don't own? Dunemaire 20:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

favor

Can you please go back to Wikipedia: Cite sources? SlimVirgin and I have repeatedly restored text you added that Francis Schonken deleted. Francis continues to revert any changes SlimVirgin and I have made. He calls his version "the consensus version." I understand your frustration with that article, but you can count on my moral support at least. I feel your comments are still valuable and hope you will comment on Schonken's revert. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Allende

You stated:

"Could you please take a look at my remarks at Talk:Salvador_Allende#Personal_doctor? I know that a doctor present at the scene said in 1988 that Allende committed suicide, but I am unaware of any evidence that his personal doctor (who was killed by the Pinochet regime) ever said this. I suspect that you may have some (slightly) incorrect information from a secondary source, but if you have a different primary source, please cite it. Anyway, your reply there would be welcome. -- "Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

At first I thought your question was only, as it is for a lot of people, whether Allende committed suicide or was killed, and answered this at length in the "talk" page of Allende, but now it dawns on me you may have just questioned whether this info source was from a "personal doctor'.

If so, you raise a good point, as I believe the two doctors in question were not personal doctors but doctors there in another capacity. You are right that probably got into my head from many secondary sources that just repeat this from some inaccurate original report from a long time ago. Nfgii 10:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Artwork from 1890s, artist died 1936 (actually 1932)

I have supplied a belated and fairly lame answer to your question at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Artwork_from_1890s.2C_artist_died_1936. Hope it's better than nothing. If you've found a better answer, please post it there. I'm just starting to work on this whole non-US copyright problem. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 17:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Petición de ayuda

Saludos. Siento no poder expresarme con corrección en tu idioma, pero me dirigo a ti, porque no sé a quien recurrir y sé que dominas en gran medida el español. Soy un antiguo contribuyente de la Wikipedia en español, que hace alrededor de un año volvió a ella. Se encontró entonces con que la Wikipedia en español estaba dominada por administradores que violaban sistemáticamente las normas de wikipedia, como la de la neutralidad y la de no borrar informacion útil. Me he rebelado contra su censura, y he reivindicado el sentido original de las normas. Uno de mis contertulios en mi página de discusión y que ha renunciado a participar en la wikipedia hispana resume así la situación que se vive en la enciclopedia en español:

Una vez que me convertí en escritor y no sólo en lector comencé a descubrir la realidad que esconde este proyecto. Ediciones honestas que buscaban enseñar a quienes quisieran aprender fueron eliminadas inmediatamente. Mis intentos de diálogo se vieron contestados por insultos y acusaciones injustos y por la extendida costumbre de recuperar la versión "oficial", es decir, la de eliminar todo incluyendo la corrección de errores ortográficos. Sólo he sido capaz de conseguir algún avance tras interminables discusiones, mediante la búsqueda de docenas de referencias a revistas, periódicos o documentos oficiales capaces de demostrar la insensatez de las críticas absurdas que con frecuencia se hacen y, principalmente, recuperando una y otra vez los datos que se intentan ocultar. Es decir, la cantidad de esfuerzo que hay que hacer es inmensa.

El gran problema es que las causas de la situación son muy profundas. Por ejemplo, es verdad que hay artículos larguísimos que describen cómo aplicar la política de neutralidad pero no hay ningún sitio donde se establezca breve y claramente qué es lo que no se puede hacer. Así es absurdo que se permita eliminar una edición completamente recuperando la versión anterior sin dar ninguna explicación. Si yo añado algo como "el 12 de marzo Aznar dijo que se estaban siguiendo dos líneas de investigación" cualquiera lo eliminará inmediatamente sin dar ningún motivo. Si lo vuelves a añadir y preguntas en la página de discusión por qué lo han borrado, que lo que has escrito es verdad, que se miren los periódicos que tienen edición digital accesible de ese día y todo eso el resultado es que te lo vuelven a quitar. Y no puedes hacer nada salvo volver a recuperarlo hasta que tú o ellos se cansen. Y es absurdo que esto sea así, porque la política de no neutralidad se resume en dos puntos: sólo se pueden incluir (1) hechos objetivos o (2) teorías existentes descritas indicando que son teorías. Si alguien elimina una contribución que no es puro vandalismo debería justificar que lo ha hecho porque no es ni un hecho objetivo ni una teoría existente. Si no se está eliminando el esfuerzo de una persona que ha querido participar en la Wikipedia lo que desincentiva dicha participación cuando se debería fomentar ya que en realidad se trata de generar un enciclopedia seria.

Yo no quiero rendirme. Y no he dejado de debatir con esos administradores. En mi página personal, he escrito un ensayo donde denunció las practicas que se cometen en la wikipedia hispana. Lo puedes leer en [[3]]

Temporalmente he conseguido algunas mejoras, consiguiendo, por ejemplo, que algunos usen la página de discusión antes de borrar lo que no les gusta o no concuerda con su ideas. Ayer estaba añadiendo información al artículo del 11-M y acababa de discutir con un administrador que quería borrar el artículo dedicado a Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogénita de los Príncipes de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón y Letizia Ortiz, y segunda en la línea sucesoria de la Corona española. Este administrador decía que en la wikipedia no debía haber artículos sobre la recién nacida (cuando otras wikipedias lo tienen). Puedes leerlo en Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Ahora no puedo escribir en la wikipedia hispana, porque otro administrador, llamado FAR, que se declara amigo del administrador con que discutía, me han bloqueado la IP, tachándome de vándalo. No me dejan ni el derecho a réplica. ¿Puedes ayudarme, por favor? ¿Con quién debo hablar para solucionar esta situación?

Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

Translation

Petition for help

Greetings. I'm sorry that I cannot express myself correctly in your language, but I'm directing myself to you, because I don't know to whom to turn and I know that you have a general mastery of Spanish. I'm an old contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia, who has returned to it after about a year. I found then that the Spanish Wikipedia was dominated by administrators who systematically violated the norms of Wikipedia, such as neutrality and not erasing useful information. I rebelled against this censura [a word that can mean either "censorship" or "sharp criticism" - JM], and have attempted to reestablish the original sense of the norms. [I find this next sentence a bit confused, I believe the confusion is in the original. - JM] One of my contertulios [a word that does not translate easilty: literally, someone who attends the same tertulia, figuratively a collaborator in an intellectual enterprise] [I think there is a missing phrase here, probably something like "left a message"] on my discussion page that he had renounced participating in the Spanish Wikipedia and summarized as follows the situation that exists in the Spanish Wikipedia:

Once I became a writer and not just a reader I began to discover the reality that this project hides. Honest edits that seek to teach whomever wishes to learn were eliminated immediately. My intentions of dialogue were responded to with insults and unjust accusations and by the widespread custom of recovering the "oficial" version, that is to say, that of eliminating all including the correction of orthographicos errors. I have only been able to achieve some gain after interminable discussions, by means of searching for dozens of references to magazines, newspapers, or official documents capable of demonstthe the foolishness of the absurd criticisms that they often make and, principally, recovering one time or another the facts that they want to hide. That is to say, the amount of force I must bring to bear is immense.

The big problem is that the causes of the situation are very deep. For example, it's true that there are long articles that describe how to apply the policy of neutrality but there is no place where it is established briefly and clearly what it is that one is not allowed to do. In this manner, it is absurd that is is permissible to eliminate an edit completely, recovering the earlier version without giving any explanation. If I add something, whatever, like "On March 12 Aznar said that they were following two lines of investigaion", it will be eliminated immediately without anyone giving a reason. [I may not have fully understood this next sentence - JM] If you come to add it and ask on the dicussion page why it was erased, when what was written was true, that if one reads the newspapers that have accessible online editions for that day and all that, the result is that you come to the point of quitting. And you can't do anything except return to recover it until you or they get tired. And it's absurd that it is like this, because the non-neutrality policy [Huh? Presumably NPOV, but what he wrote definitely means non-neutrality] can be summed up in two points: one can only include (1) objective facts or (2) existing theories, described with an indication that the ary theories. If someone eliminates a contribution that is not pure vandalisme, they ought to justificar what they've done on the basis that it is not an objective fact or an existing theory. [I may be partly misunderstanding the next sentence, but believe I have the general sense correct. I'm guessing that there should have been a comma after "Si no", but possibly it has some other parse that I am missing - JM] If not, they are eliminateing the effort of a person who has wanted to participate in Wikipedia, which discourages participation when they ought to encourage it, given that in reality one is dealing with generating a serious encyclopedia.

And I don't want to surrender. And I haven't ceased to debate with those administrators. On my personal page, I've written an essay that denounces the practices committed in the Spanish Wikipedia. You can read it at [4].

Temporarily, I've achieved some improvements, achieving, for example, that some use the discussion page before erasing what they don't like or that does not accord with their ideas. Yesterday I was adding information to the article 11-M (11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings)and I had just argued with an administrator who erased the article dedicated to Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogenitor (first son) of the Prince and Princess de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón and Letizia Ortiz, and second in line of succession for the Spanish Crown. This administrator said that the Wikipedia oughtn't have articles about the recently born (when other Wikipedias have them). You can read it in Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Now I can't write in the Spanish Wikipedia, because of another administrayor, called FAR, who is a self-declared friend of the other administrator with whom I argued, has blocked my IP, accusing me of vandalism. They don't even give me the right of reply. Can you help me please? With whom do I have to speak to solve this situation?

Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

Before expressing any opinion, please, give a look to the user page of this person, who also is registered in the Spanish Wiki like Usuario:El Rei. Even more, above you have a coment User talk:Jmabel/Archive23#fascists coming... from other user about this user. So, you'll see. Greetings from PACO 13:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mormon_jew

Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Link on Pierre Menard Page

Thanks for restoring the link...I should have thought of using the wayback machine! --Pierremenard