Jump to content

User talk:Jmabel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dahn (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 11 November 2006 (re on photos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived

Stray barnstars

I've moved my barnstars, etc., to User:Jmabel/Barnstars. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Ioan Sterca-Şuluţiu (and unrelated matters)

Good edit; thank you. It does preserve what I meant to say. And thank you for backing my 1907 idea; we do have a few months, so we can do this slowly and comprehensively.

If I may do a bait-and-switch, what do you think of this new article? Personally, I'm not a big fan, given that we have this already and that the term "accused" is pretty vague (who does the accusing--a prosecutor, or can press accusations also land someone on the list?), as is, in fact, the term "crimes"; George W. Bush might be guilty of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", but so far, few people have accused him of actual felonies or misdemeanors committed in contravention of federal, state, or local law. And so on. Biruitorul 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Accused" seems awfully vague. The standard ought to be at least indicted or impeached. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll consult with the list's originator and see what he has to say. Biruitorul 04:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNŢ

I did some cleanup there. I removed the link on total victims of Communism because, while it's an important fact and should be mentioned in an article of its own, it's not directly relevant here. One thing the new edits have done is further blur the line between the pre-1948 and post-1989 parties, again raising the merger question. As for the Ziua link, what it does is quote Ioan Mureşan, a disgraced former agriculture minister; the party platform makes no mention of monarchy. I did e-mail the party in hopes of getting a clarification on their position. The Cotidianul link has more specific figures that I inserted. Biruitorul 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradict

I made a mistake reading it the first time... accidentally linked two unrelated incidents from the Nikita Kruschev page. My apologies. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline page-number refs while reusing citation templates

Take a look my the example on the page, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives -- I only hand-created the superscript on the citation-talk page as an illustration of the example. I think I'm doing it the way you're telling me to.... Sorry I wasn't clear: my question is about having a ref link at the end of an inline link -- stylistically that seems odd, but it does what I want, which is to have a page number inline, with a full ref in Refs. But stylistically it seems like I'm footnoting a citation and there should be a better way...????
thanks,
Renice 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of editing it myself instead of trying to explain. Hope that what I did is OK with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an improvement. It's too difficult to tell that all the references come from the same source. I'd rather leave it the way I had it. But thanks. --Renice 17:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to see the Ethnic groups sidebar on (not updated) version of page

Go here to see the Ethnic groups sidebar on (not updated) version of page: User:Ling.Nut/NewPageSandbox. --Ling.Nut 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks basically good. I think we should probably do something (like surround it in another layer of invisible table, just for margins) to get a little bit of space around it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

time to remove the "Individual nationalities, ethnic groups, etc." assessment table...

On WP:ETHNIC, I was randomly clicking on links in the assessment table, and the assessments are outdated.. (see for example Ethnic German and Ethnic Japanese rated as stubs). The table is supplanted by the new ratings system, altho the latter is not really ramped up yet.. and the table takes up a considerable amount of vertical real estate on the project page.

I suggest retiring it. There's a copy of it on User:Ling.Nut/NewPageSandbox that we can refer to while updating assessments.--Ling.Nut 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any general problem with this. How, though, do we generate some type of assessment remarks that can be found without having to look at each individual talk page? - Jmabel | Talk 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a comment option of some kind when I was setting up the categories for mathBot/Wikipedia 1.0 etc. I'll look into this and see if it suits our needs.--Ling.Nut 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I've taken a first look at the page, and what I think the immediate disagreement is about, and have commented on the Talk: page. I hope I'm talking about the correct issue, please take a look and let me know. If there are other content or other kinds of issues where you would like me to try to assist, please let me know, and I'd be happy to help. Jayjg (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ethnic groups sidebar

The sandbox for the Template:WPEthnic groups Sidebar still has some red links... I don't know if you want to leave them there as a "to do list" or "wish list." I commented out a few things (portal, automation, etc.) because they seemed a bit further down the road...Which (if any) of these do you want to keep as redlinks or even begin developing:

  1. New articles
  2. Articles up for deletion
  3. Collaboration
  4. Outreach
  5. Peer reviews
  6. Translation
  7. Vandalism

--Ling.Nut 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all worth keeping, they'd all be worth starting in the near future. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I moved the sandbox to template space, then you edited the sandbox.....
--Ling.Nut 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are here--Ling.Nut 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cults in Our Midst

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Can you honestly tell me (or tell yourself) that this is a neutral article? Almost your entire focus is on her disparagement of a Landmark, and it is all effectively from the point of view that she was right to disparage them. You are focused on publicizing a possible reading that was, in fact, clarified away in a lawsuit.

Smeelgova: this is an encyclopedia. It's not a soapbox. There is nothing wrong with writing about this topic, but you are basically writing in a partisan manner, and there is something wrong with that.

I suggest that you might take a look at something like Abortion debate to see that very controversial material can be handled in an evenhanded manner. And I'd also suggest a quick read of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy, which is very short. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Duly noted, read the essay, thank you. However, that section was taken from another article in which it was duly cited. However, thank you for the advice and I will try to take it to heart. Yours, Smeelgova 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  1. Why are you cutting my remarks from your talk page?
  2. I'm not saying it was poorly cited. I'm saying that the net result was an unbalanced article: that you took material entirely from one side of a controversial matter, made no apparent effort at balancing it, and most likely (though I could be wrong, I haven't followed up your source) took the most inflammatory portions of what you found in the sources. - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to contain a discussion on one talk page. I hate having to go back and forth to reread the response and follow-up response. Okay, okay, I get your points above. Thanks for the advice. Yours, Smeelgova 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

we'll move this page, when we both agree it's done

We'll move this page, when we both agree it's done: Sandbox here for page to be moved to:

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Cleanup]]

--Ling.Nut 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"pages needing attention " section; midterms

Hi Jmabel,

Yeah, I've always wondered about that "pages needing attention" section too. There was never any text under the highest-level heading, then the section below is about archaeology. I think this and a few other sections can easily (and fruitfully) be removed from the project page... it will make the page crisper, cleaner etc.

I have midterms now, then papers to write. This afternoon I will put up a wikilink to the page on Wikipedia 1.0 that discusses having "Articles about blahbahblah with comments" structure. Beyond that, I may need to stop for a while. I will be checking my talk page for messages.--Ling.Nut 11:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tesing "comments" option

Testing the "comments" option tonight. Cross your fingers. Please note that Talk:Rukai people is rated class=A as part of the test. It should be returned to class=Stub after the test is completed.--Ling.Nut 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edits to the Asessment subpage of the Ethnic groups projects. There is a redlink marked "this article's ratings summary" in the Ethnic groups template of every talk page; clicking that link creates the /Comments page...the person does not need to create it him/herself..--Ling.Nut 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

Hey Joe, thanks for looking into those Chernikhov images, the guy who uploaded them and wrote a really great article with them constructivist architecture doesn't seem to be around anymore. Your reasoning makes sense to me should we add the template you suggested? Also do you have any more photos of the EMP like this Image:Sky Church 1.jpg? And finally, are you going to Portland and could you point me to a page with the info about it? Regards, DVD+ R/W 23:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A 3RR case

Hi Joe. I've been asked by User:MariusM to block User:William Mauco over a 3RR violation. I personally believe that no such violation took place. The case was reported at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:William_Mauco_reported_by_User:MariusM_.28Result:.29. As another admin, what do you think? Ronline ✉ 09:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bojaxhi

I noticed on an article i have edited a bit was voted previosuly for deletion. Since I do question the notablility of this person and since you voted to delete the article in the past maybe you know what should be done with this article. Dwain

Assessing importance for ethnic groups

  • OK, I believe it's set up. Tomorrow the "Rukai people" should appear as mid-importance. Would you please change it to whatever importance you prefer, if the test works?
  • You may wanna watch all the categories for a couple days. Assign at least one article to every class and every importance and see if they appear.
  • I'll let you be in charge of moving stuff from my sandbox to {{Ethnic groups}}.

--Ling.Nut 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The test failed. I tweaked the categories; see if it works tomorrow night.--Ling.Nut 06:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it failed, I meant that "Rukai people" didn't show up on the summary as a Mid-Importance article. Perhaps I didn't get all the categories right; I tweaked them a bit.--Ling.Nut 06:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Test=success. One article ranked mid-importance. Please see the bulleted comments in the top of this section for more stuff, esp., I'm asking you to take care of the move from my sandbox to the project template.--Ling.Nut 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi. I'm a little concerned that maybe your signature won't work in tables, and will break tables if it's trancluded (e.g. a /Comments page transcluded into the WP1 assessments table). That's because it contains the "|" character which is a delimiter in wiki table syntax. Have you tested your signature in tables? --kingboyk 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kingboyk, our table is a bit hosed in one spot. I dunno if it's cause of a sig or a deleted /Comments page or a test template or what. I left more details here--Ling.Nut 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Bugeac image

Ok sorry to answer so late. The map was originally created by Anonimu and he based his map exclusively on the Soviet census of 1989 if I am correct. He did not post it on the article, he just suggested it as a possible map, however everyone sort of ignored it. I contacted him and inquired about it. I took the map and changed it in areas where i knew for sure from census data from 2001 that there were mistakes. Besides the census, the sources I used were [1] and [2] as well as this site for the actual map [3]. Dapiks 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later

I'm not sure I'll be on Wikipedia much longer, Joe. It's been nice knowing you. SchmuckyTheCat 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over and out!

Hi Jmabel,

I feel like I've followed through on the cluster of tasks that I began & saw them to their end... all that's left is a few minor mopup details, all mentioned in bullet points in the section above. This time I'm really really really outta here. I look forward to working with you further, starting in December or perhaps Jan. Later!--Ling.Nut 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Fujimori

Because you edit Alberto Fujimori, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messhermit, which I just filed. --Descendall 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made a comment on that page. Do you think that this is a stong case? I've never made such an accusation before, and I'd hate to be wrong, especially in light of the fact that AAAAA recently made a false sockpuppetry claim against me. I really hope that I haven't made a mistake. --Descendall 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right. I really hope that I'm right. I'll be embarrassed if I'm not. Well, the die is cast, I suppose. If they are are totally different people, it's a hell of a coincidence. If that's the case, I hope that they at least meet and befriend each other, since they all live in the same area, and even go to the same community college. --Descendall 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sho' nuff, it was confirmed. By my count he made sixteen edits to articles that he was banned from, fifteen of which were to Fujimori. I don't know if he gets in some sort of trouble for that or what. --Descendall 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-portrait

Hi Joe, I would like your opinions (or edits) on something. I just translated User:DVD R W/Автопортрет from ru: because we didn't have a self-portrait article before and this was just a redirect to portrait with only two lines mentioned there. Could you take a look, edit as you'd like, and tell me if you think it is ready to move into article space? Thanks, DVD+ R/W 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the French version, which has even more info. I'm into trying to translate things right now, so I'll probably try this one too and then merge them. Thanks for taking a look and agreeing to help, I'm especially insecure because I'm new at translating, DVD+ R/W 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha you understate your abilities! Using the direct terms from Galina Vasilyeva-Shlyapina was a good idea, but maybe that section should not be in the lead later. Also, good idea to bring up Cindy Sherman early. Of course edit that article any time you want. I'll move it out of my userspace so I don't seem possessive. DVD+ R/W 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have a draft of the translation from French, Talk:Self-portrait/Autoportrait would you like to take a look before I start to merge them? DVD+ R/W 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right about that article. I like the mention (and pic I added) of Ghiberti to show self-portraiture in sculpture though. And maybe my favorite thing from there (though underdeveloped) is the mention of Hitchcock as a film self-portraitist, reminds me of his appearances for the introductions of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, hosting his own show and the sequence with his caricature and silouette. Should I add Image:Alfred Hitchcock.JPG, or upload a picture of his charicature (which apparantly he drew) or would that be too much of a stretch on fair use to use it in a place other than his article or the show's article? DVD+ R/W 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (fantasy)

Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment Goldfritha 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three thoughts:

  • Plainly too many. The section has 50 external links divided in 10 subsections. We are going to modify the external links guideline to use ; instead of third level headings to make it slightly harder for people to add their own links in the section, between other rationales.
  • This is the English Wikipedia, existing English external links with the similar contents than the hebrew ones, these last ones could not be included.
  • Many external links can be moved to other articles. In example, the Orthodox/Haredi ones could be inserted into the Haredi Judaism article, the Traditional/Conservadox ones into the Conservadox Judaism one, the Reform ones into the Reform Judaism one, the Conservative ones into the Conservative Judaism one, etc. This will greatly decrease the amount of external links in this article, and seems a reasonable petition. Please forgive me if, in any of my examples, I associated an external link section with the wrong branch, my knowledge about the topic is pretty limited (which is why I tagged the article instead of stripping the section myself).

Hopefully it made sense. -- ReyBrujo 05:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I see. Well, I can go discuss there, if you want. I may convince them that we are not dismissing their point of view by moving the external links to their correct places. I know some may have a hard time comprehending, but with some dialogue, they can understand as in here (just the last example). However, if people already agreed to leave that huge section there, I guess it is fine. I bet you will state something similar with Jew? :-) By the way, I recommend leaving the tag there for some time more, who knows, maybe the other editors may help cleaning their own links. -- ReyBrujo 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'99 Seattle protests

About a week ago I noticed a contradiction in WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity relating to this protester wearing Nikes. One sentence stated this protester was smashing a Niketown and another sentence a Starbucks. In a conversation with another editor, neither of us could find this picture, and the only mentions I found were in op-ed articles and columns, leading me to believe it's an apocryphal story. However, I just noticed your earlier post saying you have seen this photo? Do you remember wear, by any chance? Natalie 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a worrisome image

HI Jmabel,

My pet project includes a fair use image, taken from a non-US, quasi-governmental website (national park, actually). This image and the accompanying fair use argument were posted long before I entered the picture... I'm afraid that the "fair use" argument will be stricken down if I try to put the page up for GA or FA. The page it is on bears no copyright notice, but I doubt that argument would carry much weight.

I fear that asking a bureaucratic org. to put GFDL or other licensing verbiage on a particular page will be an uphill struggle. Moreover, English would not be their native language, and that might further hinder communication.

However, there is another possibility. The website in question has a free download page for images, and perhaps I could persuade them to copy the desired image to that page.. Full details are here. I don't know whether this fact provides an exception to the rule about free licensing etc. If you happen to know of anyone who is knowledgeable about these issues, I would be eternally grateful if you would send them my way.

Thanks, --Ling.Nut 03:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • HI and thanks for the info. The GFDL is so lengthy; I fear bureacrats whose first language is other than English won't want the trouble. Fortunately, for image use we are "not limited to the GFDL: any free license will do" Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_images.
  • Just for the record, the link I provided does link to a section on that page. It's just that the page is very very long, and the section is at the bottom of the page. It requires waiting a few moments. But at this point there's no need for you to look at the info....
  • Thanks again--Ling.Nut 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

E-mail

I can't see your email address because I have that option disabled, but I emailed you at the speakeasy.org address that's on the bottom of your webpage. --Descendall 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wilde archive page

Hi again Jmabel. I learned how to create an archive earlier this week when I took care of my talk page and found that it wasn't as difficult as I thought so I took a stab at it on Oscar's discussion page. If you have the time I would like you to check on it with the following thoughts in mind.

  1. I left the unencyclopedia and Anglo Irish discussions as they seem to be the topics that come up the most often (though I think that some of the unencyc headers might be moved to the archive.
  2. There was a messaage saying the archive was 58 kb's long. Is that too long and should we do an archive 2 moving stuff that is on archive 1?
  3. I may have moved something to the archive that you feel should still be on the current talk page. Please feel free to move anything back.

I will appreciate your taking time to make sure I did this correctly and any advice you can give will be helpful too. Thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editting the AA in the US page

I don't think there's any reason why you can't edit the article now. I have to admit, Psychohistorian is not as active in this discussion as I would like. It makes no sense to hold up the article while this drags on. Thanks and happy editting! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, after looking over Pyschohistorian's recent contributions, it appears that he's involved in several other disputes at the moment and probably has mostly forgotten this one. It is my personal style to not prod the participants to actually participate. Often these mediations are resolved when one side simply loses interest, as what appears to be happening here. More to your point, I know you aren't in the "edit warring" mindset. I don't think there will be any issue with you removing the disputed passages for now. If Psychohistorian throws a fit over it, all I ask is that you don't push the issue. Of course, medcab is only here to advise and suggest. So please take these as my personal recommendations and opinions, not permission or decree. Thanks. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, Psychohistorian hasn't participated in the mediation for the last 13 days. If there's no further action by him tomorrow, I'm going to go ahead and close the mediation as abandoned. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message for you

Hello Jmabel -- Thank you for your recent message on my Talk page. I answered you there, please stop by when you get a chance ... -- Polaris999 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the substance of this edit is accurate, feel free to re-add with citation. But please be aware that the locution "Jew George Soros" is more or less an ethnic insult. If the insult was accidental, be aware that the more appropriate way to write this is "George Soros, who is a Jew".'. Ok and Thanks! -- bg007

Shining Path mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Costache Negruzzi

Hello, you have probably found out already the answers to the two questions you have posted on the Costache Negruzzi discussion page more than two months ago. If that is not the case, you may find my answers there. All the best, Quatrocentu 09:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is the first answer I've gotten. I've worked your answers into the article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

border for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups

JMabel,

I saw a border on a different WikiProject, and thought it made the page look cleaner. I put it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups; if you don't think it adds anything then revert.

Cheers--Ling.Nut 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reverted. Everything looks great until you get to the section titled "New classification system." Then there is a formatting clash. You can look at the page history before the revert to see if you see any possibilities in the border; and whether the probs are worth fixing.

El Vez

Your recent edit to El Vez appears broken. I'd fix it for you, but I don't understand the &ltref&gt tag from memory, and won't have time to read up on it for another couple of days. Could you take a look at it? adavidw 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please forgive me for eavesdropping. I just went & fixed the <ref> tags for you. More than anything else, I was intrigued by the title of the article, "El Vez.". --Ling.Nut 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell did the tread marks get crossed?

Thanks
I've been following a lot of your edits recently, and I just wanted to thank you for your tremendous work. You're truly one of the best editors on Wikipedia. Descendall 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking of saying that "your persistent petty bickering is simply designed to be provocative and intimidating." Sums you up pretty well. --Descendall 18:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's more what I'm used to hearing. Much more in line with the Assume bad faith policy that so many Wikipedians abide by. - Jmabel | Talk 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sticerom

You have a question on your user page about an old inn in Bucharest. You wrote it 'Sticlerom' (a sensible mistake if you ask me), but it's real name is Sticerom; Sticerom is a Romanian company and among it's specialties are crystal, porcelain and Gallé type articles. The building in your picture is built in 1857 and is part of Curtea sticlarilor or The Yard of Glass Blowers (of course you may find a better translation than this one - i'm not a native English speaker). It's situated on Strada Şelarilor or Saddle-makers' Street. I hope this helps. Giuseppe86 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one more thing - the name of one of the churches on your page isn't spelled Creţulescu, but Kretzulescu. Giuseppe86 14:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows about 50-50 between the two spellings. - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Portland

No, I haven't written up an account of the meeting, which is something I need to do; I went to bed early afterwards & only got onto Wikipedia about an hour ago. (I had to address something else first.) We had 5 Wikipedians show up out of total of 29 people -- counting Jimmy Wales, his sister & Ward. This morning Eclectology & I joined a breakfast get-together of the aboutus.com people, & he & had a longish talk about Wikimedia topics -- which I'll likely share with you at the next WikiMeetup we both attend. -- llywrch 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear your comments about this (racist remarks on talk page)

Hi Jmabel,

I'd like to hear your comments about this (racist remarks on talk page):Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Irish Travellers.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdity and fair use

I notice that little more than a week ago you asked:

So let me ask: should the current Queen's official Canadian portrait be removed? After all, it is theoretically possible that someone could photograph her and release it under a free license.

Guess what? It's been deleted! Wikipedia's policy about fair use images has officially gone insane. The more I think about it the more irritated and angry it makes me. So, advice for the future: no more rhetorical questions. These people are not reasonable, and it will just draw their attention towards new images to delete as falling outside the utterly ridiculous interpretation of "fair use" policies. I imagine that the fair use image of Thomas Pynchon will be next to be deleted [and I'm not kidding - these people are beyond parody at this point]. john k 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is partly "mechanical following of rules," but it's also that Wikipedia talk:Fair use has been quietly taken over by a bunch of ideologues who think that the "free content" ideal ought to trump all other content issues on wikipedia. These people show their true colors when they talk about their concern for "downstream content providers." I think I lose all respect for anyone who actually makes conscious efforts to make things easier for wikipedia mirror sites, which are surely one of the worst things about the internet. There's lots of quoting of Jimbo Wales, and so forth. I don't have any idea what is to be done about this. I'm fairly convinced that the vast majority of wikipedia editors would support a sane fair use policy, but I have no idea how to motivate that silent majority to actually do anything. I also think there's probably a fair number of higher up types who would like to just eliminate fair use images entirely, and I'm afraid that pushing on the insanity of current policy might just lead to an all-out prohibition of fair use. So I don't know. john k 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Well," the fair use gurus of wikipedia will say, "Why don't you ask Savage to release the photo on the GFDL?" The point of their "caution" isn't to protect wikipedia legally. The point is that they don't like the very idea of fair use images on wikipedia, and they want to make including fair use images as difficult as possible so as to "encourage" people to write to famous people and ask them to release stuff on the GFDL, or to the public domain, or whatever. This small group of ideologues then has at their back an army of confused/ignorant people with the "better safe than sorry" mentality, but the key to understanding what's going on, I think, is to realize that the people who've been spearheading this policy know full well that it has nothing to do with fair use law, and are merely exploiting the ignorance of the majority as to what constitutes fair use. john k 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask. And he yet may. But it's not his photo to release (it's his publisher's) and they, of course, have simply done the usual by passing it on as a publicity photo, which (in any sane understanding) gives pretty much all of the same rights as GFDL except for direct commercial exploitation of the image as such, which has nothing to do with using it to illustrate an encylopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's completely ridiculous. Do you think there's anything to be done? john k 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect nothing can be done in the short run. In the long run, I would hope for (1) a foundation board with the same understanding and sophistication about copyright law that I would expect from anyone else who publishes my work, (2) a clear articulation of the rationale of policies, (3) an understanding of the difference between policy and law, so that it is clear where we can bend things and where we cannot, and (4) a movement back in the direction of allowing common sense and judgment rather than mechanical application of rules. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut

Jmabel,

I've probably had more interaction with you than with any other admin. If you don't mind & you're not busy, I'd be honored if you give feed back at Wikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut. Thanks--Ling.Nut 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I don't plan to try for RFA until at least a few more months have passed, during which time I will be studying & learning from the actions and comments of other admins on important issues. Plus I will try to improve in the area of communicating clearly. :-) Thanks --Ling.Nut 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, my timing is incomparably bad. In all my edits on Wikipedia, I've never reverted anything except patent vandalism. Then I reverted the edits of GA reviewer whose edits to Taiwanese aborigines were numerous and interesting. I know that Help:Reverting says "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." however, I left solicitous messages across four forums (my talk page, the other person's talk page, my editor review page and the article's talk page. Is there any case where WP:IAR can be applied to reverts, especially if much is done to ameliorate the situation?
Only if you have time --- please feel free to reply in any and all forums that you like (including Wikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut).
I apologize for being so pesky. :-)
--Ling.Nut 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My particular concerns would have been expressed on the talk page, except for another issue that I am uncertain how to handle. If what I say offends you, please tell me but: the contributor's edits are probably grammatical in the variety of English that exists in the area he/she hails from, but do not seem like grammatical SAE to me. I know there's a guideline about not switching back/forth between UK and US spelling (centre/center, etc.), but what about grammar? How can I breach the topic without seeming like an offensive boor? I have no desire to come across that way.
I am full of questions. I appreciate your time & trouble.
--Ling.Nut 00:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anthropologist an economist and a linguist were eavesdropping. The anthropologist said "Brown is a social construct." The economist said "Brown, relative to what?"
The linguist didn't say anything; he/she was transcribing their speech.
Should I make your recommended changes now, or is it too late, since the contributor has already disavowed any desire to contribute further?--Ling.Nut 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The linguist said, "You misconstrued the assertions of Whorf."
Thank you for the input/advice.--Ling.Nut 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embryonic Basque Portal and (maybe) Wikiproject. Interested?

Hi. I have noticed that you have been recently noticeably active in the discussion/edition on some pages of Basque theme. If you are interested in adding up to this project, please visit my talk page (and check this draft for the portal contents). --Sugaar 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Here you are:

--Double standards at Wikipedia--
I've noticed that Greier has just received a two-week block for a 3RR report made by Jmabel, after Khoikhoi too had made a 3RR report for the exact same violation. He probably deserves his punishment, if he violated the rule.

What surprises me is the double standard applied at Wikipedia. On articles related to Transnistria I've had to deal with edit warrior User:William Mauco (a correspondent for the on-line newspaper Tiraspol Times see the end of the article), for whom I alone counted 6 different cases of 3RR violations, which I reported. He was never blocked. He was "warned" twice [4], [5]; once, the report was rejected because I did not indicate a "Previous version" [6]; I simply received no reply in the fourth case [7], and in the last two cases, which took place yesterday, a Russian admin (not coincidentally Russian) protected the repsective articles on which the 3RR had been violated but did not also block the guilty user [8], [9].

I am calling attention to this double standard (in fact to the lack of any standards) in which one user receives two weeks for violating the 3RR while another violates the rule six times without even being blocked once. I myself have violated the 3RR once because of said edit warrior; it would not surprise me to receive a block of about two weeks. Biruitorul 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, then, I had understood it correctly. This is all very surprising. Mauco should certainly have been blocked. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

What did we ever do before WP:AN? From my experience WP:AN/I is a "busier" board, so you can try there. Alternatively, as I've said, you can always come to me and I'll try to help. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never been able to fully understand the difference between the two. I see AN/I as the place to notify people if a problem is occurring right now, whereas AN is the place to talk about issues in general. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping the current state of the article will induce the anon to discuss things on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmong American Page

Thanks for your recent help on the Hmong American page. You may not be aware that the same poorly formatted list was recently added to the Hmong people article. Since it seemed like this level of detail was better suited to the Hmong American page, I moved it with a note to that effect. The original poster immediately reposted it making the already unmanageable Hmong people page only moreso--now with the same list in two articles. I don't want to delete it because so far I am the only one who has responded to the edit. If you would care to reformat the list or delete it from the Hmong people page, I think it would be a great benefit. (Maybe asking for such action is inappropriate, but the article is still a real mess.) Nposs 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have already done so, no? - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it didn't show up in my watchlist. Thanks for all of your work. Nposs 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 6 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Seattle (1856), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Hesse

Hi Joe,

The High School of Industrial Arts and the High School of Art and Design are one and the same. When Eva Hesse attended it was called Industrial Arts, however it is the same school. Lucy's book says industrial Arts, my mistake - however the original citation is correct, I'll fix it. Modernist 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia

Hi, Joe. Mikkalai is making disruptive and subjective edits to the article, and editing against the consensus that has made us fuse the various articles into one. He misinterprets concepts that he may just not have ever understood properly, and is referring to me as a "nationalist" and a "supporter of Greater Romania". He is currently "negotiating" some form that will feature his POV prominently, by editing the text in various forms that differ from one another as he is getting acquainted with terminology, and is doing so against the sanctioned usage of the term "Moldavia". I'm asking for your input on that page. It is simply unacceptable for the sheer credibility of wikipedia to have as careless edits by someone who has already admitted not to have knowledge of the topic. Dahn 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've weighed in. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As usual, refreshingly clear and balanced. Dahn 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Sm1969 has been making legal threats, again. What is the policy on this again? That you can either make legal threats, or edit Wikipedia, but not both? How do I go about reporting this or doing research on the policy? Yours, Smeelgova 05:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

(answered on Smeelgova's page) - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(answered again on Smeelgova's page) - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for clarifying. In general it is usually easier for me to follow conversations if they are contained on the talk page of the person that I leave the original comment to. Thank you. Smeelgova 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

AN/I

Joe, I left a summary for you as requested. [10] SlimVirgin (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yakima War reply

Hi. Just made a reply to your query/comment re the POV tag. See Talk:Yakima War.Skookum1 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIFF reply

The festival has never released any kind of analysis regarding its audience and attendance participation. However, everyone from SIFF officials to film pundits use this number. This article, now 10 years old, at least gives some range. I am sure that scouring archives of The Stranger, Seattle Weekly, Seattle PI, or the Seattle Times will yield some further results that will confirm this total number (truthfully I remembered reading it in the Stranger for the '03 fest run). I don't have time for such things, however. Perhaps the article should be edited to make room for the speculation regarding the participatory yield. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armsgravy (talk • contribs) 7 November 2006.

Transnistria

Could you come on Talk:Transnistria. I have a nice example of what we're in with some of the users. Please, look at these exhanges, from line 1286 on. And then check the edit history of User:William Mauco. In all the articles you find, look for Transnistria. You'll find it in 99% of them. I'm really tired of it.

The problem is that the same happens with actual sources, as pointed above in the talk page. And I don't know what I can do. MariusM tried 3RR and didn't work, so that an RFC may be just a loss of time... Dpotop 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second proof of lie and manipulation. User:Mark us street which is a self-acknowledged sock of User:MarkStreet manipulated the date of the posts, and then lied about it. You can find a diff here. Unfortunately, it's polluted by other edits. In text, you should look for the first 5 posts of section Talk:Transnistria#Suggested Change to Polticial Status 2.
Is there some rule against forgery with the intent of pushing a POV?
It's like having User:Bonaparte the other way around. You should do something about this user. Dpotop 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPATRA

I do agree that the English article is already quite extensive. I am not completely sure whether it has already been translated, as the note on my talk page was left quite a while back and I have been in and out the country since then, with no much time for Wikipedia I am afraid. What I could do is to compare the current state of the article with the Spanish version and see whether it is worth nominating it or simply keeping it as a pet article, helping out whenever I get a chance. Personally, I would actually rather start working on any article currently not available on en.wiki. I will pay the Spanish wiki a visit and get back to you with some ideas. Regards, Asteriontalk 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ochs note

You are more tactful than I am; I was tempted to add "you morons" to my note .... thanks for adding your clarification which, of course, was a good idea. The article has come a long way, I'd say. Tvoz 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara article

Hi Joe. Would you mind taking a look at the Che Guevara article. The "criticism section" was painstakingly merged with the "legacy section" by myself, polaris and others to the agreement of all. An anon user has thrown a tantrum - believing that we have deleted the criticism section - and has re-inserted the old awful crit section beneath our consensus version. Meaning we now have numerous duplications, and the return of a few hopeless additions of no encyclopedic value. This user is throwing a few accusations around the talk page and shows all the charm and abilities of article creation that turns a good article into a mess, and the talk page into a ghost town. I went through all this with the horrific behaviour of editors on the Fidel Castro page which led to a breakdown of the article and an exodus of editors, I'm not sure I have the stomach to see that happen again.--Zleitzen 20:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do with this. I think there is a certain amount of legitimately citable material in the criticism section that is not totally redundant to the legacy section; for example, the mention of criticism from the anarchist left is not anywhere else. There is also some crap. I'd suggest that the best chance of success is to follow a process something like this, making small edits and summarizing each. This need not all be done exactly sequentially:
  1. One by one, remove items that are simply redundant, pointing out where the material already resides.
  2. One by one, for material that is undersourced, either source it better (if possible) or kill it, saying explicitly that it is poorly sourced.
  3. Take what is left and merge it into the criticism.
Also: if a user is impugning your good faith on the talk page, tell him that you are tired of being attacked in space that is intended for working on an article and invite him to start an RFC. Possibly tell him that if he continues the personal attacks on a an article talk page, you will be the one to start an RFC or to simply ask for administrative enforcement of the policy against personal attacks.
Does that help at all?
- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful advice. I agree that the criticism from the anarchist left is not anywhere else, that is perhaps an area worth restoring (with a reword). I believe the rest of the crit is explained in the previous legacy section, or in the main body of the article.
Concerning El Jigue. Despite being an eccentric and often impossible character, the recent misdemeanours that led to his two week block amounted to no more than prolific speculations about the health of Fidel Castro on various pages. Not strictly the purpose of talk pages, but they were balanced by his sharing of detailed information that was helpful to the pages. A far cry from his extreme contrarian days. When confronted by an administrator, El Jigue's typically unorthodox line of defence was to launch into a detailed analysis of Cuba's black rebellion of 1912 - which didn't help matters to say the least! His block is rather sad really. --Zleitzen 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, I took a look at your user page. Aguirre, Wrath of God is indeed a magnificent movie! I have the Popol Vuh soundtrack which still sends shivers down my spine, particularly the opening section which accompanied the extraordinary early Machu Picchu scenes. I recommend, if you haven't already seen it, My Best Fiend. A sometimes shocking, sometimes hilarious account of Herzog's relationship with Kinski and the making of that film. The most bizarre apocryphal tale was an incident when a crew member was bitten in the foot by a snake in the jungle, rapidly chainsawing his own foot off to avoid a quick death. The egomaniac Kinski, feeling marginalised by the drama of that incident, launched into such a rage that filming was suspended for several days. Herzog pulled him out of his rage by eating the last chocolate at the crew's disposal with glee in Kinski's face! Though Kinski then went on to injure several extras, attacking a man with a sword and shooting at people through a wooden hut! By comparison, the filming of Apocalypse now was a cakewalk.--Zleitzen 11:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Q's

Responded at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006#Edit warring over question. Thank you. -- Avi 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.:Dc76 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are aware: I'm not the one who put a POV tag on this. Grafikm fr did. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting back to me so quick. Yes, I can see that from the "history", but it was just fair to use this occasion to ask everyone his/her oppinion, maybe there is something you see as a problem, even things not stong enought to need a tag. You seem to have taken pains already to go through this article.:Dc76 07:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORIN CERIN SAGA

How do you explain about an article by Sorin Cerin who been published by Paradox Ethereal an academic philosophical publication,(Athens ,Greece)on editorial page for october and november?Who are the writers of this publications?Samuel Beckett,Ezra Pound,Wiliam Shakespeare,etc. See romanian wikipedia. Sorin Cerin have enough notability to be in english Wikipedia,see Google. Sorin Cerin is an american-romanian,philosopher,who live in New York and Bucharest. Why Sorin Cerin cannot be in english Wikipedia? Because don't wish Caterpilar,Ricky and J.Mabel? Sorry for my bad punctuation and english who are not my first tongue. In 7 August you said:"Again if someone can show notability based on reliable source,I would be perfectly glad to have an article."What article Mr.Mabel? Notability?Just see philosophical article by Sorin Cerin ,or go again to romanian Wikipedia. Is a big SHAME what happening with Sorin Cerin.86.55.244.235 08:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I explain it? Well, given that every single person who has written to me about it has the same bad punctuation I explain it by saying that all of these remarks come from one person. I followed up the first three of these. At this point, I don't care. This is the boy who cried wolf. - Jmabel | Talk 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos issue

Hi. I have a problem with sending emails from home, where I currently am, so it's easier for me to reply here (I have to get in touch with my provider on this issue). I could not find the user you mention - you probably gave me the wrong name. If you could perhaps double check it or provide a direct link to one of those messages, I'd appreciate it (you can send it to me in an email - I'll probably reply here. Yes, I'm a Bucharester (not originally, but I still have to disappoint Anittas: although I'm a provincial by birth, I'm still a profoundly Wallachian one...) Dahn 17:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&oldid=87165624"